Hi all,

I have installed Win NT od an older computer (1GHz) running previously with Windows 2000 but as it was to slow for some reasons I decided to load NT form a Ghost image on c:\ which was NTFS formatted.

There are also two other disc D: (NTFS) and E: which was FAT32 and the latter cannot be seen now from Disk Administrator (it says the disk in "not recogised") and of course all the valuable data cannot be retrieved.

I wonder what happens because that Ghost image was made on NT with the latest version of Service Pack 6a and I repeated these installation of SP6a once again but without result.
Why then on another computer running under NT I can access the FAT 32 partitions easily?
I was told that the SP4 or higher is responsible for FAT32 access...

What am I doing wrong?

Zennon

See reply #1 in the preceeding thread.

Best

NT3x/NT4x cannot see/access/handle fat32 - without the addition of a suitable util.

www.sysinternals.com

offers one

W2K (aka NT5) can see etc. fat32, also fat16 (to 4Gig max), and ntfs.

W2K uses ntfs5, and also converts any ntfs4 it finds (the version in NT4) to ntfs5 as soon as it finds it on the same physical system.

So if another NT system can see etc. fat32 then it has the required add-in util installed, or that NT installation to which you refer is either W2K, or XP, or W2K3, or even Longhorn; all of which can handle fat32?

NT-sp4 allows NT4 to acces etc. ntfs5, and also allows it to access/use drives in excess of 7.8/8Gig. It does not provide fat32 capability for NT4.

W2K uses ntfs5 ??

It is NTFS version 3.1:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;310749

...and this was discussed in the post below anyway, it is great when both posters and responders do not read other postings!!

Until M$ posted that KB... it was frequent to find ntfs as in NT4 referred to as ntfs4; the version with W2K and subsequent OS as ntfs5 (even 5.1 for XP...) Somewhere (if I can find them) I have assorted links to discussions various re' the differences between each version of ntfs, and those ntfs "(mis)-designations?" are legion in them (some of the sites being pro related sources...).

Nonethless the M$-KB link is useful to have for future reference - tanx for that...

http://www.ntfs.com/quest1.htm

ntfs.com used to use 4,5,5.1 but have changed recently to MS numbering!

Best

"jubalsams":

Thank you for that info. I was reasonably sure that my previous comment re' ntfs generations (drawn from sources various) was correct; but not being an enlightened soul (just yet) and thus not infallable... I was (still am) quite prepared to be corrected by those better informed...

There were at least three sites (pro or very near to) that used the ntfs4 etc. convention in their discussions etc. from early on once W2K mooted/arrived