Jump to content

Installing Vista x64 Ultimate on FAT32


Jody Thornton

Recommended Posts

I understand that Vista/7/8 cannot install to a FAT32 partition, so I was going to convert the installation afterwards with PartitionMagic. Supposing I can get this done, I am concerned that FAT32 limitations will damage the WinSxS folder because of folder entry limits. Is this the case, or am I stewing over nothing? Will Windows Update work properly?

I have found that on XPx64, my 80 gb SCSI drive takes a performance hit with NTFS (4k clusters), whereas it's faster with the simpler FAT32 system. I assume this would be the same case for Vista, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Converting the partition after installation might be possible, but I've never tried, and I don't know if the Vista/7/8 bootloader is compatible with FAT32. Also, I assume you mean Powerquest PartitionMagic? If so, I remember that it didn't like partitions created by Vista, try something like Minitool Partition Wizard instead.

Edited to add:

According to this thread, running Vista from a FAT32 partition is possible but far from simple.

Edited by Ffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask you what is the original reason why you would not have it on NTFS?

The speed of that SCSI disk?

Which SCSI is it? (I mean 1/2/3 or Ultra160/320)

Which exact disk model is it?

How (EXACTLY) it is currently partitioned? (I mean is it using the good ol' cylinder alignment or the newish Mb alignment)?

It is possible that aligning it to Mb you gain something, but it would be the first time that someone ever reports a noticeable (which does not mean "measurable") overall difference on speed NTFS vs. FAT32 on a relatively fastish bus.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a U320 Drive and it's a Fijitsu Disk (I'm not home so I can't check). It's 10,000 rpm. Whether it NTFS or FAT32, XP smokes on it. Vista was installed last year on it for a couple weeks test run, and it ran well too. By the way, the partition takes up the entire disk.

My reason for doing it is for the slight performance improvement gained on smaller partitions. In every instance I've tried, I find XP and Win2KPro ran better on FAT32 on partition sizes smaller than 120 GB. So on larger partitions and servers, I use NTFS. On smaller fast disks, I prefer FAT32 without the overhead of NTFS.

Sometimes the added features and stability of NTFS aren't needed. I'd rather the simplicity of speed of FAT32 on smaller disks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

there is the usual risk of starting a FAT32 vs. NTFS flamewar :ph34r:, I never did benchmarks comparing them on newer OS's, but the noticeable difference should be on 2K and not that much on XP, or at least this was the case for (slowish) USB devices:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/

Traditionally the difference in speed is connected with filesize, cache, and fragmentation level, this article is still valid:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938440.aspx

you could turn off (but this is a "global" setting) Last access time:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940846(v=winembedded.5).aspx

and as said try with Mb aligned partition (which might produce a slight improvement).

Personally, you will need to pry NTFS out of my dead hand :w00t:, if not for anything else (like sparse files and hard links/mountpoints :)), for the speed of filesearching through the $MFT :yes:, but of course you are very welcome to use FAT32, though as in the source of the already linked to "method" to have Vista installed on a FAT32 filesystem:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?&showtopic=14181&view=findpost&p=119093

it is not that bad, after all.

Problems (as you may read between the lines or outside of them ;)), are - as I see it:

  1. that tutorial was made with Vista 32 bit (and NOT 64 bit) so even if that is tested and confirmed, may (or may not) appy to the 64 bit version
  2. a Vista install uses hardlinks, which are probably part of the issues in point #4.) of that tutorial
  3. you are basically using a 64 bit system in order to gain access to more RAM (or there are other reasons that I am no aware of?) BUT you won't be able to have hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted)
  4. the final scope of that experiment was to produce a smallish (limited) Vista to be installed on USB flash
  5. 7 (seven) years have passed since, and there is no evidence that any later SP or KB/update has not introduced some further limitations and/or that a number of programs won't "like" to be on FAT32

So - and I know you didn't ask for my opinion (but I will provide it nonetheless), if you do that as an experiment, it is a nice one, if you do that as a "solution" for increasing disk speed on a "production system" it is "pure folly" .

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

there is the usual risk of starting a FAT32 vs. NTFS flamewar :ph34r:, I never did benchmarks comparing them on newer OS's, but the noticeable difference should be on 2K and not that much on XP, or at least this was the case for (slowish) USB devices:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/

Traditionally the difference in speed is connected with filesize, cache, and fragmentation level, this article is still valid:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc938440.aspx

you could turn off (but this is a "global" setting) Last access time:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms940846(v=winembedded.5).aspx

and as said try with Mb aligned partition (which might produce a slight improvement).

Personally, you will need to pry NTFS out of my dead hand :w00t:, if not for anything else (like sparse files and hard links/mountpoints :)), for the speed of filesearching through the $MFT :yes:, but of course you are very welcome to use FAT32, though as in the source of the already linked to "method" to have Vista installed on a FAT32 filesystem:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?&showtopic=14181&view=findpost&p=119093

it is not that bad, after all.

Problems (as you may read between the lines or outside of them ;)), are - as I see it:

  1. that tutorial was made with Vista 32 bit (and NOT 64 bit) so even if that is tested and confirmed, may (or may not) appy to the 64 bit version
  2. a Vista install uses hardlinks, which are probably part of the issues in point #4.) of that tutorial
  3. you are basically using a 64 bit system in order to gain access to more RAM (or there are other reasons that I am no aware of?) BUT you won't be able to have hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted)
  4. the final scope of that experiment was to produce a smallish (limited) Vista to be installed on USB flash
  5. 7 (seven) years have passed since, and there is no evidence that any later SP or KB/update has not introduced some further limitations and/or that a number of programs won't "like" to be on FAT32

So - and I know you didn't ask for my opinion (but I will provide it nonetheless), if you do that as an experiment, it is a nice one, if you do that as a "solution" for increasing disk speed on a "production system" it is "pure folly" .

jaclaz

I certainly appreciate your opinion. I'm not one of those who acts like, "Who Asked You?" I hate that when people say that; it's second place to when you ask someone a question and they say, "Google is your friend!" I hate that! LOL.

( a ) First off I always disable Indexing. I know Vista onwards makes more use of it in the start menu for that "Search Here" feature, but I don't mind slower searching (since my mindset is already set to "searching for something"). I would rather have the Indexing off and have those resources for unadultered speed of disk access or caching. I'd rather not have my system slower so that occasional searches are faster.

( b ) Next, with as much as 7 GB of RAM in my system, I turn paging off with XPx64, so I hope to do the same with Vista. Also I run an HP Workstation so I do not utilize Hibernation.or power saving features that store images to the HDD.

( c ) I would have to disagree (albeit with anecdotal evidence) that FAT32 performance benefits are nothing more than "pure folly". There is documentation supporting better speed of FAT32 on small drives < 120 GB. I will have to find that for you, but the speed increase is quite real I assure you.

( d ) The NTFS features that you cite not being able to live without (ie. sparse files and hard links/mountpoints) are not features I want. I just want to have a straight ahead file system. I don't even need permissions.

Just a couple partially unrelated things, but they do illuminate my mindset towards operating systems. I hate this idea that for new OS interfaces to be popular, it's believed that I have to be able to hover my mouse pointer over an icon, and have it tell me five things at once via tool tips (ie, author, filesize, size on disk, version number, blah, blah, blah!). If I want the filesize, or any other info, I will right-click and choose Properties.

I am somewhat saddened to move to Vista and upwards, because I am going to miss how lightweight Windows XP was (my truue favourite was Windows 2000). But to stay up to date, there are no "lightweight" options. Why can't Microsoft make an OS revision that will complement older hardware or even simpler hardware?

Thanks for listening.

:)

Edited by JodyThornton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] hyberfil.sys and pagefile.sys bigger than 4 Gb (unless you place them on another volume, NTFS formatted) [...]

Is that at all possible? I mean, moving pagefile.sys is well established even to places it clearly wasn't meant to be moved to, like removable disks (the latter, mainly thanks to Karyonix worship.gif ). Now, moving hyberfil.sys (as opposed to disabling it, which is trivial) is said to be impossible, but so was putting pagefile.sys on removable disks, until Karyonix solved it. I've never pursued that seriously, because I like my machines turned off, not hybernating... but since you talked about it, are there any reliable reports it has been done, and, better still, descriptions of how to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

( c ) I would have to disagree (albeit with anecdotal evidence) that FAT32 performance benefits are nothing more than "pure folly". There is documentation supporting better speed of FAT32 on small drives < 120 GB. I will have to find that for you, but the speed increase is quite real I assure you.

We are not disagreeing at all :), I was not saying that FAT32 per se does not provide speed benefits, I merely stated that your report (anecdotal or otherwise) is the first one I ever saw about these benefits being "noticeable" (which - again - does not mean "measurable").

The "pure folly" was not connected to "FAT32" in itself was connected to the WHOLE "experimental install of Vista, and of a 64 bit version of it, and on FAT32 and on a production system".

@dencorso

I have no idea about hyberfil.sys :unsure:, I personally find the whole idea of "hybernating" a "feature that has NO practical use" (at least on desktops).

Personally I tend to switch on a computer and never switch it off unless there is a need for doing so (which means usually once every several weeks/months), but the common usage in *any* normal business use of a desktop is to switch it on, work on it for some 8 hours or so (actually about 4 hours of "work" once you subtract the watching of Youtube videos or p0rn :ph34r:, some twitting, some Skype, some needless instant messaging and a huge amount of irrelevant emails, both sent and received ;)) then switch it off AFAIK.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jaclaz, on 01 Dec 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:jaclaz, on 01 Dec 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

@dencorso

I have no idea about hyberfil.sys :unsure:, I personally find the whole idea of "hybernating" a "feature that has NO practical use" (at least on desktops).

Personally I tend to switch on a computer and never switch it off unless there is a need for doing so (which means usually once every several weeks/months), but the common usage in *any* normal business use of a desktop is to switch it on, work on it for some 8 hours or so (actually about 4 hours of "work" once you subtract the watching of Youtube videos or p0rn :ph34r:, some twitting, some Skype, some needless instant messaging and a huge amount of irrelevant emails, both sent and received ;)) then switch it off AFAIK.

jaclaz

That's how I am with my system. After a full cleanup and defragmentation once every two months, I boot it up, and simply log off the system when I am not using it. I only need to restart after Windows Updates.

Edited by JodyThornton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

{...} will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32? Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?

Who knows? The only way of knowing the answer to that and many other equally abstruse questions any of us may go on inventing, is to stop talking, and proceed to experimentation, with all due respect. I, personally, do not care for Vista x86 at all, much less for Vista x64, but I'm interested in trying to coax (or maybe coerce) Win 7 x86 into working from FAT32, along the lines of Dietmar's work on Vista x86, so your results, if you decide to pass on to experimentation, do interest me deeply. With all due respect, in the immortal words of Jan van de Snepscheut (or, maybe, Yogi Berra): "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is"... so I do think it's time to proceed to experimentation. IMO, all you need is any good Live Linux distro or, even better, a Windows PE (as a bootable pendrive or CD/DVD), the latest xxcopy.exe, fat32format.exe and bootsect.exe (preferably v. 6.3.9431.0)... plenty of time... and patience galore! A good plan also helps, but with image backups one can recover from almost any mistake, so even a lousy plan is a good way to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, maybe it should be determined how you would get the OS onto that kind of volume. I just tried to deploy Windows 7 x64 to a FAT32 partition and it gives me errors.

DISM:

[1724] [0x80070001] EnableShortnamesOnApplyTarget:(785): Incorrect function.[1724] [0x80070001] WIMSetFileShortName:(844): Incorrect function.[1724] [0x80070052] WimCreateDirectory:(3459): The directory or file cannot be created.[1724] [0xc144012e]2013-12-02 13:23:45, Error                 DISM   DISM WIM Provider: PID=1724 c:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-a..managerui.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7600.16385_en-us_443db5647679d4a2 (HRESULT=0x80070052) - CWimManager::WimProviderMsgLogCallback[1724] [0x80070052] RestoreDirTree:(3748): The directory or file cannot be created.[1724] [0x80070052] WIMApplyImageInternal:(685): The directory or file cannot be created.

Imagex:

[   0% ] Applying progress[ ERROR ] c:\Windows\winsxs\x86_microsoft-windows-a..managerui.resources_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7600.16385_en-us_443db5647679d4a2 (Error = 82)Error restoring image.The directory or file cannot be created.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

{...} will the proper working of the WinSxS folder be ensured under FAT32? Or will the absence of links (hard/symbolic) cause problems here?

Who knows? The only way of knowing the answer to that and many other equally abstruse questions any of us may go on inventing, is to stop talking, and proceed to experimentation, with all due respect. I, personally, do not care for Vista x86 at all.

**** When I proof read this; it sounds mean, but it's not meant to be (just matter of fact) ****

With all due respect jaclaz, I have a plan to experiment, but there's nothing wrong with asking others to see if they have had issues first. Why would someone go and blindly repeat history, when someone else knows all of the caveats I'll encounter. So no; I will not "stop talking". It amazes me how people have that "Google is your freind" mentality. Nobody wants to converse or exchange ideas any more, and that's what this forum should be about.

Besides jaclaz, if you're not interested in what I'm doing with Vista, you don't have to be the one to answer. Maybe others have an opinion on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...