I don't like partitions. Is there an upgrade yet that will let me install NT4 to a FAT32 drive? If not, where can I get a good FAT32 driver for NT4?

It's possible via 3rd party means, but I cannot vouch for it personally. Keep in mind that there are downsides to making the whole drive FAT32: 1. The standard chkdsk utility in Windows NT won't work on FAT32 volumes. 2. The 7.8 GB system partition limitation will likely be an issue on larger drives, but you may get away with a single partition if your drive is smaller. 3. FAT32 is inferior with larger clusters than NTFS. 4. FAT32 is inferior with recovery compared to NTFS. Personally if I were to go with the risky FAT32 approach, I'd still stick with a 1 - 2 GB FAT16 primary partition (natively readable and bootable by both NT and 98SE) and then set the remainder as FAT32. This way you avoid the 7.8 GB issue while still maintaining the ability to run NT's chkdsk (and 98SE's scandisk) on the system partition. A simple registry change (or TweakUI) on both OSes can be made to set your default programs directory to D:\Program Files, so that all future programs install on the FAT32 D: drive. Others here may have alternate suggestions, but it is typically a good idea to separate your OS and data on separate partitions, regardless of OS.

I found one on toastytech.com . It's supposed to be able to boot from a FAT32 partition if I use the Windows 2000 OS loader. Where do I get that? >2. The 7.8 GB system partition limitation >will likely be an issue on larger drives, >but you may get away with a single >partition if your drive is smaller. The drive is 12 gig, and I don't intend to partition it. This may make NT4 useless. The main reason I want NT4 is that it can use two processors if you have them. I only have one in my Thinkpad, but I think I can get another one on a pci card for the docking station. (Can I?) >Others here may have alternate suggestions, >but it is typically a good idea to separate >your OS and data on separate partitions, >regardless of OS. Why?

To get the Windows 2000 OS loader, you'll need a Windows 2000 CD. I cannot personally vouch for this method either, so you will be taking chances with this and the 7.8 GB limitation. Partitioning is standard practice for people running multiple OSes, and in some cases it is absolutely essential, due to differences in how each OS handles different file systems. For instance, Linux often uses an ext2 file system which is not natively readable by any version of Windows. Even people who only dual boot between two Windows versions will often create partitions to avoid certain conflicts from occurring. For example, most versions of Windows share common locations for program files and system files. Sometimes conflicts will occur if one OS installs one version of a program and the other OS installs another version in the same location. This can render some programs unusable. I cannot overemphasize the importance of partitioning when NT4 is involved. You could more easily get away with dual booting 98[SE] and Windows 2000 on a single FAT32 partition and still maintain the ability to take advantage of 2 processors, at least with 2000 since it is based on NT. You could still run into conflicts, though if you insist on a single partition.

"I don't like partitions.". Well, you're out of luck. You can't run any Windows OS without a partition. "So won’t you give this man his wings What a shame To have to beg you to see We’re not all the same What a shame" - Shinedown

mmm... I is puzzled here with this query... It has been possible for some time to boot nt4 (installed in its native formats) from a fat32 ('9x) (active Primary) system partition. But why would one seriously wish to boot/run NT4 in a file format not intended for it (e.g. nt4 in fat32 partition)? True there is the fairly widely available read (and write) fat32 util for NT4 (in its native file format/s) which allows it access etc. fat32 area(s). And as the link below suggests apparently it is now possible to install/boot NT4 to/via a fat32 formatted installation...; but again - why do it? http://winprj.net/board/viewtopic.p... and this is usual info re' the nt4 fat32 read/write util... http://www.softpedia.com/get/System... While you can install nt4 in a partition shared with another OS - e.g. '95 and it usually works OK (fat16 2Gig max), it isn't recommended or an ideal path to take. Dos and NT4 will co-exist OK - but also with a partition size max of 2Gig. This even though nt4 can/will handle 4Gig fat16 as its boot-partition - but that size partition cannot be seen/accessed/used by '9x/ME... It would be far better to have each OS in its own "space/partition"; and also to have data - accessible by both OS (common file format) in a separate space/partition. There are assorted approaches to a dual-boot nt4/'9x; matter of taste as to how you go about it... But otherwise consider W2K/'9x as both use fat32 without problems... But again ideally have each OS in its own space (even though it will usually work OK if both in same partition...) Where/how to get a W2K boot-loader... You need the CD and then start a minimal installation; cancel it at first reboot and you have the loader etc... It may also be possible to achieve it using the standard W2K boot-floppies - images for download at bootdisk.com. Expand these to floppies and boot etc. with those floppies... But again I see this "requirement" for nt4 as fat32 (system files in a fat32 boot-partition) as more trouble than it's worth? Stick with the conventional/established wisdom/experience on this OS and set up a standard dual-boot properly?

Has anyone ever had a problem using NT4 and 98 in the same partition, or is this just a theory? If so, what was the problem?