Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Nomadic Logic · Apr 28, 2006, 09:39 AM

My MBP is on its way with a 120GB HDD installed. I'd like to give WinXP more than 30GB, but I have been advised that you can only move files between OSX and XP if your XP is running FAT32 as opposed to NTFS.

What if I had 3 partitions? OSX, XP (NTFS), and a small FAT32 partition?

Would I be able to place files in that FAT32 partition and get at them from both OS?

What do you guys think?

BkueKanoodle · Apr 28, 2006, 12:26 PM

That would work fine. The upside to that is if something trashes either of your system partitions, there's a good chance your data partition is still is recoverable.

hookem2oo7 · Apr 28, 2006, 12:29 PM

i thought that os x could read NTFS but not write... i use a similar setup on my PC that dual-boots linux and XP. i have a 10gb fat32 partition that holds everything i need to be accessible between both OSs

Nomadic Logic · Apr 28, 2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7

i thought that os x could read NTFS but not write... i use a similar setup on my PC that dual-boots linux and XP. i have a 10gb fat32 partition that holds everything i need to be accessible between both OSs

Exactly on both parts. OSX cannot write to NTFS, which is why they recommend FAT32. I want an XP partition bigger than 32GB, which requires NTFS.

Basically, I want to go:

Partition 1: OSX (JFS), 55GB
Partition 2: WinXP (NTFS), 60GB
Partition 3: Data (FAT32), 5GB

The data partition would be a kind of DMZ between the two used strictly for the transfer of files.

dazzla · Apr 28, 2006, 02:21 PM

I'm after a similar setup, around 30GB OS X, 20GB Windows XP and the remaining 70GB a shared Fat32 / HFS+ (Macdrive on XP) "media" partition with my movies and music etc on.

I've no idea how to go about setting it up with boot camp though as it only gives a 2 partition option.

harrisjamieh · Apr 28, 2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Nomadic Logic

Exactly on both parts. OSX cannot write to NTFS, which is why they recommend FAT32. I want an XP partition bigger than 32GB, which requires NTFS.

Basically, I want to go:

Partition 1: OSX (JFS), 55GB
Partition 2: WinXP (NTFS), 60GB
Partition 3: Data (FAT32), 5GB

The data partition would be a kind of DMZ between the two used strictly for the transfer of files.

Windows more than OS X?!

Nomadic Logic · Apr 28, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Windows more than OS X?!

Games on Windows.

harrisjamieh · Apr 28, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Nomadic Logic

Games on Windows.

Fair enough... I wouldn't be able to live with that, my OS X partition is 135, and my Windows is 15, perfect for me (though I do lots of video, so I need the space in OS X

)

Tomchu · Apr 28, 2006, 03:33 PM

You don't need to do that. FAT32 supports >32 GB drives, it's just that Windows setup doesn't let you format them as FAT32 if they're above that size. You can use a third-party utility, like Partition Magic, to do so.

As for actually sharing files between systems ... get MacDrive by MediaFour, and you'll be able to read and write to your HFS+ volume safely in Windows. OS X can also read your NTFS volume, but not write.

ghporter · Apr 28, 2006, 04:27 PM

Can we slow down a bit here? Isn't Boot Camp ONLY set up to make a Mac partition and A SINGLE Windows partition?

I would love to say "when I did it I did this..." but I'm still just a poor college student (again) so I don't have the Intel Mini I'm lusting after to report experiences with. I DID read something to that effect here. Someone with experience PLEASE bail us all out!

Reason: I LIKE the idea of a separate data partition. I do that with my Windows machines for a couple of reasons. First, I image the partition with the OS on it as soon as I have all the drivers and settings the way I like them-and I like to keep that partition small enough to fit on a single DVD (at least once it's compressed). Second, incremental backups of data are simpler if you can just point the app to E: and say "go for it." (Yes that implies another partition: the one with the apps on it, and it's that way for similar reasons.)

Also, I haven't seen a definitive answer to the "Can I boot XP from an external drive" question. That would be helpful here as well.

Oh, and Apple could come up with a patch for OS X(Intel) that let it use all the journaling and security features of NTFS so we could use BOTH of the top-of-the-line file systems on our Intel Macs...

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Tomchu · Apr 28, 2006, 04:51 PM

The only way that Apple could get NTFS write is if they licensed the NTFS code from Microsoft. The open-source camp hasn't been able to get stable/reliable NTFS write for years -- they've finally resorted to just loading the ntfs.sys driver and translating Linux FS calls to/from it.

mduell · Apr 28, 2006, 11:39 PM

Since OSX can read NTFS natively and Windows can read/write HFS with (free) 3rd party software, why not just have an HFS partition and an NTFS partition?

If you want to have a seperate partition for your data from your OS, you could just make another HFS partition.

Tomchu · Apr 29, 2006, 01:00 AM

Yeah, that's what I suggested to him too.

Some people like the long way around though. :-)

dazzla · Apr 29, 2006, 02:46 AM

I'd love to do that, but how do you get around the boot camp loves 2 partitions thing?

harrisjamieh · Apr 29, 2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Since OSX can read NTFS natively and Windows can read/write HFS with (free) 3rd party software, why not just have an HFS partition and an NTFS partition?

Free? MacDrive is the only program I know of that will allow you to read HFS+ on Windows, and that costs ~$20 to be able to use it for longer than the 5 day demo.

Please enlighten on other software that lets you read/write HFS+ on windows..

mduell · Apr 29, 2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Free? MacDrive is the only program I know of that will allow you to read HFS+ on Windows, and that costs ~$20 to be able to use it for longer than the 5 day demo.

Please enlighten on other software that lets you read/write HFS+ on windows..

I googled and came up with it the other day... let's see if I can find it.

edit: This and this should help you.

torifile · Apr 29, 2006, 06:36 PM

ghporter,

To answer your question, I'm pretty sure that bootcamp can only do 2 partitions, so I'm not sure how people would use bootcamp to make a 3rd partition. At least it only offered to make 2 when I installed it.

ghporter · Apr 29, 2006, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by torifile

ghporter,

To answer your question, I'm pretty sure that bootcamp can only do 2 partitions, so I'm not sure how people would use bootcamp to make a 3rd partition. At least it only offered to make 2 when I installed it.

That's what I thought I'd read before.

dice · May 2, 2006, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Nomadic Logic

Exactly on both parts. OSX cannot write to NTFS, which is why they recommend FAT32. I want an XP partition bigger than 32GB, which requires NTFS.

This is not true. You CAN create FAT32 partitions greater than 32GB. Windwos just limits you to 32GB for some reason. I have an external firewire drive with a 200GB FAT32 partition and a 100gb HFS+ partition. The FAT32 partition is visible on both Macs and PCs.

Nomadic Logic · May 2, 2006, 07:30 AM

How did you go about creating a FAT32 partition bigger than 32GB? If it's possible, I'd much rather go that route.

Tomchu · May 2, 2006, 11:54 AM

Normally, on a BIOS-based PC, you'd just use a third-party partitioning tool like Partition Magic. I know that Intel Macs use GPT disks, though ... so I'm not sure how Partition Magic would like that. It might expect MBR-style disks.

ghporter · May 2, 2006, 07:39 PM

PartitionMagic likes Linux and Windows-style drives, whether MBR or not. I just recently got a big SATA drive and PM liked it just fine too. It does not (at least in the current versions per Symantec's web site) handle HFS+ partitions. I'd expect this to be an addition eventually, as BootCamp becomes more entrenched.

PS, FAT32 supports up to 2 Terrabyte drives, though WIN2K and XP (specifically) have issues with formatting FAT32 partitions over 32 GB. HOWEVER, MS says you can use the Win98 startup disk format tool to format FAT32 partitions over 32GB.

Tomchu · May 2, 2006, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

PartitionMagic likes Linux and Windows-style drives, whether MBR or not. I just recently got a big SATA drive and PM liked it just fine too.

MBR is the partitioning style that all BIOS-based PCs use, regardless of operating system, so there's no reason for Partition Magic not to support a SATA drive, as long as you're using it with a BIOS-based PC that also exposes IDE-compatible interfaces for the SATA controller.

The problem is that Intel Macs use GPT partitioning, which Partition Magic will most likely not recognize, so doing the >32 GB FAT32 format with PM is not an option.

One could also format the drive as FAT32 from within OS X, though. I didn't think of that earlier.

mduell · May 2, 2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by dice

You CAN create FAT32 partitions greater than 32GB. Windwos just limits you to 32GB for some reason.

Just a little explanation: FAT32 supports volumes up to 8TB. 32GB was "really big" when Windows added FAT32 support, and by the time 32GB disks were available FAT32 was deprecated in favor of NTFS. Windows can read and write any FAT32 volume, but the formatting tool only supports creating volumes up to 32GB.

ghporter · May 2, 2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Just a little explanation: FAT32 supports volumes up to 8TB. 32GB was "really big" when Windows added FAT32 support, and by the time 32GB disks were available FAT32 was deprecated in favor of NTFS. Windows can read and write any FAT32 volume, but the formatting tool only supports creating volumes up to 32GB.

Microsoft says FAT32 only goes up to 2TB; are you referring to an extended version, or is the MS knowledgebase article I linked above out of date?

Tomchu · May 2, 2006, 10:41 PM

FAT32 is capable of going up to 8 TB, with a 32 KB cluster size, but it's not recommended because the FAT table itself would be 1 GB in size (I'd have to double check this). That would be hell for performance, so therefore it's not recommended.

The technology itself does 8 TB, but 2 TB is the "practical" limit.

ghporter · May 3, 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

FAT32 is capable of going up to 8 TB, with a 32 KB cluster size, but it's not recommended because the FAT table itself would be 1 GB in size (I'd have to double check this). That would be hell for performance, so therefore it's not recommended.

The technology itself does 8 TB, but 2 TB is the "practical" limit.

Cool. It sounds like typical Microsoft; leaving out a technical detail in their explanation because they don't use it...

Tomchu · May 3, 2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Cool. It sounds like typical Microsoft; leaving out a technical detail in their explanation because they don't use it...

I don't think there are any hidden motives behind them reporting 2 TB -- it's simply not recommended to go above that with FAT32, so they're saving a few people some headaches.

That said, I don't know why you'd even have a FAT32 drive of 200 GB, let alone 2 TB. I've had my data go *poof* a few times with FAT32.

mduell · May 3, 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Microsoft says FAT32 only goes up to 2TB; are you referring to an extended version, or is the MS knowledgebase article I linked above out of date?

Another issue of implementation vs. standard.

ghporter · May 3, 2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Another issue of implementation vs. standard.

Great point. You'd think <MS Bash ON> Microsoft would at least explain that in their base document on the system...<MS Bash OFF>

ghporter · May 3, 2006, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I don't think there are any hidden motives behind them reporting 2 TB -- it's simply not recommended to go above that with FAT32, so they're saving a few people some headaches.

That said, I don't know why you'd even have a FAT32 drive of 200 GB, let alone 2 TB. I've had my data go *poof* a few times with FAT32.

I agree on "making things easier on some customers" being a good explanation of MS's lack of completeness. But I do have (sitting on a shelf next to me) a good reason for a FAT32 (I think) drive of 300GB: my network drive is visible to every platform I've tried (two different flavors of Linux on a PC, along with XP and OS X), so either the network interface is doing something interesting when a non-Windows OS makes a request, or the disk is initialized in a format that all can read: FAT32. I'm very cautious about integrity, but then it's not a Windows computer that's handling the data, so maybe I'm safe!

Tomchu · May 3, 2006, 07:47 PM

Actually, they talk about that on this page: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...c13621675.mspx

"In theory, FAT32 volumes can be about 8 terabytes; however, the maximum FAT32 volume size that Windows XP Professional can format is 32 GB. Therefore, you must use NTFS to format volumes larger than 32 GB. However, Windows XP Professional can read and write to larger FAT32 volumes formatted by other operating systems."

Moot point, though. FAT32 is junk. Use NTFS where you can, and if you need some form of flexible file exchange between OS X and Windows, Mac Drive is the way to go.

Tomchu · May 3, 2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I agree on "making things easier on some customers" being a good explanation of MS's lack of completeness. But I do have (sitting on a shelf next to me) a good reason for a FAT32 (I think) drive of 300GB: my network drive is visible to every platform I've tried (two different flavors of Linux on a PC, along with XP and OS X), so either the network interface is doing something interesting when a non-Windows OS makes a request, or the disk is initialized in a format that all can read: FAT32. I'm very cautious about integrity, but then it's not a Windows computer that's handling the data, so maybe I'm safe!

Wait, your network disk, or a drive in an enclosure that you hook up over USB/Firewire?

If it's a network disk, the underlying file system that the drive is formatted in won't matter, as you'll be using NFS/SMB to access it.

ghporter · May 3, 2006, 09:30 PM

Network as in I plug an ethernet cable into it. It DOES have a USB2 interface for faster transfers, but I don't use that, only the ethernet connection. The device is a Coolmax CN-550 Network Attached Storage device. And I just checked the manual; it says the file system is FAT32. While it's subject to bloat (I don't seem to have any means of tweaking cluster size), the drive IS 300GB... And as the admin on it, I can dump whatever I want if it starts filling up!

Tomchu · May 3, 2006, 10:24 PM

Ahh, okay. Then yeah, the file system won't matter if you're connecting to it over Ethernet. Those things run an embedded operating system (sometimes Linux) along with Samba. All that's presented to you is an SMB/CIFS interface. The reason they use FAT32 for those is because a) some people might want to hook the thing up over USB, and then the file system would matter, and b) because FAT32 is extremely simply to implement.