boot partition

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:25:49 -0400, "Peter M" <pmcneil1@cogeco.ca> 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" <macecil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g8qu92prkeh87ej73ihq36trjd94f61r54@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:25:49 -0400, "Peter M" <pmcneil1@cogeco.ca> 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"
<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/

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" <macecil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bs7v92hsvftlv17om52frajpoomia6ih97@4ax.com...

> 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" <noodle59@hotmail.com>
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.