theKeeper

Bob is there any necessary reason you've formatted your system for NTFS? I highly do NOT recommend that for anyone who's just an average, normal computer user. Even Microsoft themselves do not recommend that format for the average user.
It's meant for high-end big business computers.

I'm using FAT32 so i do not think/know that my files will be fully compatible on your system now -- and you may find this true now of a lot of file types -- which is why NTFS is not for the average user.

You'll have to make sure of what i'm saying Bob and search MS's site for more specific info on this subject.
Let me know when if/you find something.

But i highly recommend you go back to FAT32 if you can.
And for anyone using WinXP... be aware that the SP is somewhat buggy, so expect some quirky system behaviour; of unknown origin.
I myself have not applied it, but my friend did, and i've read a lot about it.

Bobzworld

Mark, i've always used NTFS.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

NTFS is more stable than FAT/FAT32, has self healing options, is more secure, you can use security, encryption, compress folders/filers (I don?t mean the ZIP feature of XP), is faster for large hard drives, etc. I use NTFS since I introduced it on large network 7 years ago, but only on servers. Since then I've used it with Win2k and XP. Because of my work I experiment a lot with new software and only on NTFS partitions. What I can say from personal experience is that today almost every software is compatible with NTFS, even the programs that would also run on a win95/98/ME machine. Programs that are famous to have a problems with NTFS are older versions of programs that have direct access to disk, software like partition managers, defragmentation software, diagnostics and recovery software etc.

I always advice every user at home to go for NTFS and then mainly for one reason; stability; NTFS is very stable. In the old days a simple scandisk or chkdsk in the earlier days always showed lost clusters, some of which could recovered, but in most case you would lose some data. This risk has been highly reduced after the introduction NTFS. Win XP even has an extended version of NTFS, version 5.1. As long as the average use doesn't change the permissions of files and folders, there shouldn?t be too many problems, also because you will need more than just one click to change something.

The reason that Microsoft warns the average users not to use NTFS at home comes from the time that NTFS was mostly being used on business computers during the period of Windows NT. Even in those days mostly servers used NTFS and workstations were most of the times configured with FAT, because it was easier for technicians to diagnose/recover systems with a simple dos boot floppy.
Since 2 or 3 years a lot of home users started to use NTFS, first with Win2k, later on with XP. Many software manufacturers had to make sure that their software would work without a problem on NTFS partitions and trust me, they seldom had to change anything.
Let?s be honest; with Win2k and XP we still have a system on which it is easy to delete a few system files, boot files, a partition, do a format, mess up the registry with regedit etc., all which are a higher risk than a user changing permissions.

We now have rock solid operating systems (if well configured) that really need NTFS as foundation. FAT/FAT32 will be a thing from the past in a few years, especially with the sizes of hard drives growing faster than ever. It?s not without a reason that NTFS is included in both Home(!) and Pro versions of Windows XP. The only reason to use FAT/FAT32 would be in certain multi-boot configurations for different operation systems. About the SP1; it is true that there are occasions that some things don?t work the same after installing SP1, but that is the case with almost every service pack. The best way to install a service pack would be the re-installation of the operating system with an XP setup CDROM that already contains SP1. Reinstallation would mean a lot of work, but it would mean the most stable environment.

theKeeper

Ok cool, G thanks... good info there.
And yes... i'm speaking a bit from 'old school'.

My general question though remains unanswered... would my files, created on a FAT32 system, be compatible/recognizable on a NTFS formatted system?

Maybe break that whole text block up a couple times though to make it more legible...?

Rick

Good info there G, my system came to ne with NTFS and I have never had a problem with any of my old programs[confused]

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Yes, no problem Mark. A file system always keeps the content intact. That's the reason why we are able to even use data from a MAC, OS/2, Mainframes, Linux etc.

A misunderstanding by some people is that clients in a network need to have NTFS to read NTFS on a server or any other workstation; this is however not true. The operating system on the serving/sharing side will take care of it that you will be able to read NTFS partitions. It's even possible to share an NTFS machine in a network and read it on a network client that is using a DOS operating system. You will be less compatible, because things like long file names, permissions, compression etc will not be supported, but the content will always be intact.

You can install NTFS when you choose NTFS for your partition during installation of the operation system. Even if your system is already running FAT32, you can still convert it by going to the command line and type:

CONVERT C: /FS:NTFS (If C: is your drive with your operation system)

It's however not possible to convert NTFS back to FAT32. For that you need a special tool like Partition Magic from Powerquest.

You can even have combinations of FAT/FAT32/NTFS on one Win2k/XP machine; the system really doesn't care.

Some people create the operating system on NTFS and the data partition on FAT, so that they will have these FAT files to their disposal if they would boot a with different operating system on that same PC (some operating systems don't support NTFS).

Rick

Your right G, I have NTFS on the Hard drive with my operating system
(WIN XP) and my other HD is FAT32 and no problems at all

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

Good to hear Rick and I didn't expect otherwise.

One should understand that programs like Photoshop don't write directly to the disk, but give the Operating system the command to take action. It's like a general software layer between the software and the hard drive. Photoshop only says; "this is my data, this is the filename, I want it to be written and this is where I want it to be stored". That's what it does and that's why you can't expect major problems, other than with programs that try to bypass that layer, which doesn't happen with all new software.

theKeeper

ooo ok now that's even better info. Didn't know most of that, and now i'm glad i do.

Thanks G. [righton]

Well ok then... here's a zipped file of my Light Styles folder.
There are several custom ones in here, and they're all meant to be used under specific situations, and settings. So if ya wanna use 'em for anything, you'll probably want to play with the settings a bit rather than just using my default saved settings.

Have at 'er!

wbiss

So kind of you to share!