Comments on: Install Windows Vista on a FAT32 Partition

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:02:52 +0000

Thanks, but is it possible somehow to enable FAT32 during installation (hack, pre-hack, undocumented features) and disable NTFS with its f-ing security and total slowdown (up to 200%)???

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:49:01 +0000

Windows 3.1 is a lot faster and uses less memory than windows xp so we should all switch to that :D

By: halnovemila

halnovemila — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:17:58 +0000

Well, I fully agree with Wolf.
Never tried to install WinVista on a FAT32 partition coz I wasn’t aware it is possibile till now after reading this post by magakos.
And also never really interested to install Windows Vista, as far as I can still use WindowsXP.
However old FAT32 has let me for years to use DOS filebatch to swap system folders of multiple Windows OS installed on the same primary partition… so that I didn’t never have the need to use more than one partition or any boot loader (except only for the native NT one) just to have multiple “normal” installation of Windows OS (either multiple of the same or different Windows version).
Nice to see that there is a chance that I will still be able to use my switch OS trick even with Vista or Seven.
Greetings.
Alessio.

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:09:10 +0000

I don’t get it what makes people repeat this stupid statement “I don’t see the advantage of FAT32 over NTFS” over and over again like a parrot. Are they all payed by the Microsoft PR department?
The advantages of FAT32 over NTFS in many real life situations are obvious. Here are just a few of them:
1. HDD access on FAT32 partitions is significantly faster than NTFS.
2. NTFS is limited to NT based operating systems, while FAT32 works with Win9x, Linux and DOS without any unnecessary troubles.
3. FAT32 doesn’t have this annoying security overhead of NTFS which let the OS prevent you from full access to your hard disk. I prefer that I am in command of my computer and not the OS. Security is for cowards or idiots.
4. Chances to recover corrupted data are much better on FAT32 partitons than FAT32 partitions.
There are only few situations, where it makes actually sense formatting with NTFS instead of FAT32, e.g. when you have files larger than 4GB. But this is normally only the case with some DVD-ISOs.
In order to install Vista you also need an NTFS partition, but who would voluntarily install Vista on his machine as long as there is a far superior and faster OS (i.e. Windows XP) available?
Newer does not mean better.

By: Email won't be published...only spammed -

Email won't be published...only spammed - — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:31:15 +0000

lol.. He’s just saying he doesn’t see the advantage of fat32 over ntfs,
but if somebody comes up with a way to install Windows on ext3 filesystem,
he will be impressed. I’d have to say I agree - although I don’t ever see
that really happening. Cool find to the article poster, by the way -
I can’t think of any reason to do this, but that certainly doesn’t mean
that somebody else won’t find this usefull - thanks for sharing!

By: Jolly Rodger

Jolly Rodger — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:54:14 +0000

Leaving non-english comments on an english page = fail.

By: Israel

Israel — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:30:48 +0000

realmente não conheço a vantagem de usar o vista em fat32, ainda se fosse ext3, partição nativa de linux isso sim seria evolução, mas como o windows não suporta a tabela unix, a não ser por programas de terceiros só se criar mesmo uma emulação que engane o vista pra instalar em ext3!