Another reason to go for FAT32 is for application support. Some applications only work for Windows 9x cause the NT/2K/XP/2K3 drive is formatted for NTFS.

Yeah, but XP also has that tool, what's it called, damn I forget and can't find it, but where you can run older software as if it was running on a 98 box or whatever so that it'll run in XP. Damn it, what's it called. Hmm, microsoft calls in Compatibility Mode on their website, so I guess that's it. Does it work well though? never tried it.

There is an option to run certain programs as if they were in another version of Windows to preserve some compatibility.

However, I find it odd that any program would have issues with the file system. Isn't that something that should occur at a lower level than the applications would have to deal with. Something that should be handled via the operating system itself? I am sure w/ all you have handled with coding for windows, you can give some examples of why/why not SR.

TIA

Even if u have booted it from a boot disk,

it doesn't mean Xp has been booted into DOS(Defective Operating System).

I'm runnin XP Pro SP1 and I've yet to come accross any software that won't run on it...

HD: 40GB
Partitions: 1 NTFS
Processor: 1.7GHZ
RAM: 256Meg

This configuration is perfect, i've yet to find any issues, running NTFS actually goes faster than running as FAT32.

I hate you. As soon as I wrote my post I thought that exact same thing. I don't understand it myself. But I have known of an example of a program that wouldn't run on NTFS but would on FAT32. I have no clue as to why it makes a difference other than low level drive accessing.

On the other hand maybe my noodle is mixing stuff up like the dyslexic I imagine myself to be and am actually thinking about the capability of access Win2k drives fromatted in FAT32 from a linux or 98 partition.