boot partition

I have dual booted operating systems for years, for one reason or another. I use a small FAT partition for my boot drive c:, which makes it easy to replace and or edit boot files if need be. With operating systems from vista onwards I take it this will not be possible any more?

Indeed.. Vista requires NTFS as I understand it.
"Steve" wrote in message

I have dual booted operating systems for years, for one reason or another. I use a small FAT partition for my boot drive c:, which makes it easy to replace and or edit boot files if need be. With operating systems from vista onwards I take it this will not be possible any more?

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:25:49 -0400, "Peter M" wrote:

Indeed.. Vista requires NTFS as I understand it.

Of course, it is an artificial requirement just like XP not creating FAT32 drivers over 32GB in size. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

Why do say it is artificial? The security features of NTFS are the biggest reason.
"Michael Cecil" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:25:49 -0400, "Peter M" wrote:
Indeed.. Vista requires NTFS as I understand it.
Of course, it is an artificial requirement just like XP not creating FAT32 drivers over 32GB in size. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:05 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

Why do say it is artificial? The security features of NTFS are the biggest reason.

Artificial, because you can convert the NTFS drive(s) Vista is installed upon with a 3rd party tool to FAT32 and it works just fine. Of course, you lose the NTFS security functionality but there's no inherent reason it can't run on FAT32. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

I think you guys misunderstood me, my boot partition is only for boot files, i.e boot.ini, config.sys, ntldr and so on. C: drive is only 500mb fat 16. D: drive is ntfs os drive.
"Michael Cecil" wrote in message

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:05 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst" colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:
Why do say it is artificial? The security features of NTFS are the biggest reason.
Artificial, because you can convert the NTFS drive(s) Vista is installed upon with a 3rd party tool to FAT32 and it works just fine. Of course, you lose the NTFS security functionality but there's no inherent reason it can't run on FAT32. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:20:15 +1000, "Steve" wrote:

I have dual booted operating systems for years, for one reason or another. I use a small FAT partition for my boot drive c:, which makes it easy to replace and or edit boot files if need be. With operating systems from vista onwards I take it this will not be possible any more?
It'll still work. As long as Vista setup sees an active primary

partition on the bootable disk, it's satisfied.

I'm not sure you can set it up that way, but my XP partition is FAT32, and Vista placed its Boot Configuration Data store on that FAT32 drive. It works very nicely. Of course, Vista, itself, is installed on a separate logical drive on an NTFS partition.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:08:37 +1000, "Steve" wrote:

I think you guys misunderstood me, my boot partition is only for boot files, i.e boot.ini, config.sys, ntldr and so on. C: drive is only 500mb fat 16. D: drive is ntfs os drive.
"Michael Cecil" wrote in message On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:05 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst" colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:
Why do say it is artificial? The security features of NTFS are the biggest reason.
Artificial, because you can convert the NTFS drive(s) Vista is installed upon with a 3rd party tool to FAT32 and it works just fine. Of course, you lose the NTFS security functionality but there's no inherent reason it can't run on FAT32. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

Since Windows 64-bit systems don't anything 16bit, I hope you are installing Vista86 not Vista64. Just a guess.
"milleron" wrote in message

I'm not sure you can set it up that way, but my XP partition is FAT32, and Vista placed its Boot Configuration Data store on that FAT32 drive. It works very nicely. Of course, Vista, itself, is installed on a separate logical drive on an NTFS partition.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:08:37 +1000, "Steve" <noodle59@hotmail.com wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood me, my boot partition is only for boot files, i.e boot.ini, config.sys, ntldr and so on. C: drive is only 500mb fat 16. D: drive is ntfs os drive.
"Michael Cecil" wrote in message On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:14:05 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst" colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:
Why do say it is artificial? The security features of NTFS are the biggest reason.
Artificial, because you can convert the NTFS drive(s) Vista is installed upon with a 3rd party tool to FAT32 and it works just fine. Of course, you lose the NTFS security functionality but there's no inherent reason it can't run on FAT32. -- Michael Cecil http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/ http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/