Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

FAT file system

  • 16-02-2012 4:10pm
    #1
    adocholiday
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,016 ✭✭✭


    Quick question regarding FAT. Long story short, I'm doing a clean install of XP on an old machine. I want to be able to access the drive with other Operating systems including Linux and MS-DOS so it has to be a version of FAT. I've done a lot of research as to whether or not to go for FAT16 or FAT32 and I can't decide. It seems that MS-DOS is only compatible with FAT16 up to version 7 and then it's compatible with both. On the microsoft site however it states that MS-DOS is only compatible with FAT16.

    Am I missing something? Version 7 of DOS was released with Windows 98 but I don't think it was ever released as a standalone version. If this is the case I will have to go with FAT16 but I can't find any definite info on this. Would really appreciate some input on this!


Comments

  • #2
    yoyo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭yoyo


    FAT32 would be the better choice, and later DOS should work fine with it (Win 95/98 support FAT32 and are heavily built on DOS). I doubt Windows XP will work with FAT16, although I stand to be corrected!

    Nick

    My Beer Glass collection site 🍺

    My Irish Callcards site



  • #3
    Khannie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    FAT16 is to be avoided at all costs. It will absolutely *eat* filesystem space on modern hard drives. The space just disappears. It is horrifying.

    Linux has no trouble with NTFS btw. Do you really need DOS? If so, can you have it on its own partition?


  • #4
    GreenWolfe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    The vast majority of Linux distros read/write to NTFS drives. There are a number of NTFS drivers for DOS but I've never used any of those.

    Have a look at utilities here, probably your best bet.


  • #5
    Nothingbetter2d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    EarthlyPangaea wrote: »
    The vast majority of Linux distros read/write to NTFS drives. There are a number of NTFS drivers for DOS but I've never used any of those.

    Have a look at utilities here, probably your best bet.

    yup i have to agree most versions of linux can read ntfs drives.........

    also fat 16 or 32 wont work great with 1Tb or larger drives.


  • #6
    adocholiday
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,016 ✭✭✭adocholiday


    Thanks for the responses guys. It's not that I particularly need any of these things, I'm just trying out various combinations of OS's and getting familiar with older, dated features such as DOS and the FAT file system.

    Will be working with a number of different things over the coming months so I'm not overly bothered about making mistakes. Just nice to know I'm doing things right.

    Going to go with FAT32 for now and move on from there. If anyone has anything else to add, feel free!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    GreenWolfe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    adocholiday wrote: »
    Thanks for the responses guys. It's not that I particularly need any of these things, I'm just trying out various combinations of OS's and getting familiar with older, dated features such as DOS and the FAT file system.

    Will be working with a number of different things over the coming months so I'm not overly bothered about making mistakes. Just nice to know I'm doing things right.

    Going to go with FAT32 for now and move on from there. If anyone has anything else to add, feel free!

    If you're running DOS on anything vaguely modern (even a base XP-spec machine) any program that depends on precise clock timing will go haywire and run way too fast.


  • #8
    adocholiday
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,016 ✭✭✭adocholiday


    I will be using DOS for diagnostics only so I'm more concerned about it being used with the correct file system than anything else. Point taken though.


  • #9
    GreenWolfe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭GreenWolfe


    adocholiday wrote: »
    I will be using DOS for diagnostics only so I'm more concerned about it being used with the correct file system than anything else. Point taken though.

    You should give UBCD a try then, it's a DOS-based live cd with plenty of diagnostic programs. Not installable or anything, but worth a try anyways.


Advertisement