|I know about the cluster sizes, I have a different thead for that. It's a useless debate, since both NTFS and FAT32 allow a series of cluster sizes, and both have got a default, which is more suited for saving storage, than aimed at speed. In other words, the default cluster sizes are too small, whether NTFS or FAT32.|
The cluster-debate is not related to the filesystem choice. Either one may max. out at 32K, but it's not relevant since nobody bothers to go higher than 4K already. You say yourself, you loose 3K for a 1K file already.
The default cluster size for FAT32 is 4K, not 32K, I think.
I also know that XP can be installed on a FAT32, that's what I had. I did a couple of runs of the installation, and on one of them, I choose the "convert to NTFS" option ... THAT is the problem.
I'm not saying that I need to have FAT32 on that drive now, but I was wondering that IF I want to, how to do that. It appears that MS made it as hard as possible, so you cannot do that. Actually, they did a pretty good job there.
And why would you want FAT32 ?
Well, there is a claim for better performance using FAT32, but only under specific (non-realistic ?) situations. But, there's also a better compatibility with both DOS and Linux. There is a reason why FAT32 is still used a lot. NTFS is not unconditionally better than FAT32, it is just not. Major drawback of FAT32 is file size limit, and also disk size limit (32G). Have a question there, cause I have 2 disks of 80Gig, using FAT32, default cluster size (I think), using all of those 80G if needed. One of those disks contained XP (now it is an NTFS disk however, but that is only after the second or third install). First install was with FAT32 disk, no problem seen.