W2k Install drive limitaions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

1- Is the NT4 7.8GB install drive size limitation also applicable to
Windows 2000?

2- Does W2k need a FAT partition to install or can it directly install
to an NTFS partition?

3- Considering the answer to question 2, would there be any performance
gain to installing W2k on an NTFS partition or converting to NTFS after
the installation? I know the advantages of NTFS, all the data and
program files will be on separate NTFS partitions, the Operating System
and core files/programs will be on a partition of its own. I'd like
your opinion performance wise, will the OS be faster or more reliable on
NTFS? What are the pros and cons of either? If there are no
performance gains to be had by having the OS on NTFS I plan to put it on
FAT32, at least I can access the drive with DOS if I need to fix things,
versus using good NTFS tools that are rather pricey for someone who
might only use them once a year. What do you think?

4- Now that I have picked your brain and that things are fresh up there
I would like to indulge in a final question. Considering the answer to
question 3, if I were to install the OS to a FAT32 partition and put the
PageFile on a partition of its own should I make it FAT32 or NTFS?
Why? Sorry that was 2 (final) questions. Many thanks for your help.

Regards;

John
 
Inline reply:

John said:
1- Is the NT4 7.8GB install drive size limitation also applicable to
Windows 2000?
Click to expand...
* This is a hardware limitation and occurs independently of the operating
system. This should not be an issue on a newer computer if their BIOS
supports INT13 Extensions and this feature is turned on, which it is by
default. Also this article may help.

Setup Does Not Check for INT-13 Extensions Before Creating System Partition
(Q240672)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q240672

2- Does W2k need a FAT partition to install
Click to expand...
* No


or can it directly install
to an NTFS partition?
Click to expand...
* Yes

3- Considering the answer to question 2, would there be any performance
gain to installing W2k on an NTFS partition or converting to NTFS after
the installation? I know the advantages of NTFS, all the data and
program files will be on separate NTFS partitions, the Operating System
and core files/programs will be on a partition of its own. I'd like
your opinion performance wise, will the OS be faster or more reliable on
NTFS? What are the pros and cons of either? If there are no
performance gains to be had by having the OS on NTFS I plan to put it on
FAT32, at least I can access the drive with DOS if I need to fix things,
versus using good NTFS tools that are rather pricey for someone who
might only use them once a year. What do you think?
Click to expand...
* NTFS is the native file system of Windows 2000. NTFS is more reliable,
allows file level encryption, file level compression, file level access
permissions. In general a much more secure file system. A disadvantage may
be that if you dual-boot, then the other OS; Win98/ME can't read NTFS
without some third party support.

4- Now that I have picked your brain and that things are fresh up there
I would like to indulge in a final question. Considering the answer to
question 3, if I were to install the OS to a FAT32 partition and put the
PageFile on a partition of its own should I make it FAT32 or NTFS?
Why?
Click to expand...
* NTFS, see above.
 
Thanks Dave, your help and expertise is much appreciated. I'm going to
do it NTFS all the way.

Regards;

John

Dave said:
Inline reply:

John said:
1- Is the NT4 7.8GB install drive size limitation also applicable to
Windows 2000?
Click to expand...
* This is a hardware limitation and occurs independently of the operating
system. This should not be an issue on a newer computer if their BIOS
supports INT13 Extensions and this feature is turned on, which it is by
default. Also this article may help.

Setup Does Not Check for INT-13 Extensions Before Creating System Partition
(Q240672)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q240672
2- Does W2k need a FAT partition to install
Click to expand...
* No

or can it directly install
to an NTFS partition?
Click to expand...
* Yes
3- Considering the answer to question 2, would there be any performance
gain to installing W2k on an NTFS partition or converting to NTFS after
the installation? I know the advantages of NTFS, all the data and
program files will be on separate NTFS partitions, the Operating System
and core files/programs will be on a partition of its own. I'd like
your opinion performance wise, will the OS be faster or more reliable on
NTFS? What are the pros and cons of either? If there are no
performance gains to be had by having the OS on NTFS I plan to put it on
FAT32, at least I can access the drive with DOS if I need to fix things,
versus using good NTFS tools that are rather pricey for someone who
might only use them once a year. What do you think?
Click to expand...
* NTFS is the native file system of Windows 2000. NTFS is more reliable,
allows file level encryption, file level compression, file level access
permissions. In general a much more secure file system. A disadvantage may
be that if you dual-boot, then the other OS; Win98/ME can't read NTFS
without some third party support.
4- Now that I have picked your brain and that things are fresh up there
I would like to indulge in a final question. Considering the answer to
question 3, if I were to install the OS to a FAT32 partition and put the
PageFile on a partition of its own should I make it FAT32 or NTFS?
Why?
Click to expand...
* NTFS, see above.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft MVP [Windows NT/2000 Operating Systems]
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top