Some installfest issues

[Matthew J. Brodeur]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jerry Feldman wrote:

> On 22 Apr 2002 at 14:17, Matthew J. Brodeur wrote:
> > If you're still using NT (ugh) you'd have to stick w/ FAT16 for the
> > shared space, though.
>
> Why FAT16 though. I would think that if one of the OSs were the original 
> Windows95 or earlier, then FAT16 would be necessary. But, FAT32 has been 
> used since Windows95 OSR1. 

   Windows NT 4.0, which is _almost_ always what I mean when I say NT, 
never supported FAT32.  Windows NT 5.0, aka Windows 2000, definitely 
*does* support it, and has done so all along.


> I would recommend that all NT based systems use NTFS for most of their 
> stuff though. 

   Sure.  As I mentioned before, on a tri-boot system I'd have at least 
four partitions:
	Windows 98	FAT32
	Windows 2000	NTFS
	Linux		ext3/XFS
	storage		FAT32

   If you had to run NT4 instead of 2k the storage partition would have to 
be FAT16.  I think that Win9x would have to be on FAT16 as well, since NT 
has to be able to write boot loader files into that drive.
   I also have no idea how XP fits into this picture because, IMO, it 
doesn't.


- -- 
     -Matt

186,282 miles per second: It isn't just a good idea, it's the law! 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8xGhpc8/WFSz+GKMRAghRAJ4xlI7ugf6kpTzGwWO0tYAvDJ7YHgCfWlWt
OXPkb5vR/gTltaar1cD/al4=
=343F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----