Win XP to Win 98

I installed Win XP on my computer and used it for a whyle. Now I am going back to Win 98, but they use different file formats! So in Win 98 I will not be able to use any of the files I used in Win XP. I really need them, is there a conversion tool, that lets you conert the files from Win XP so they are usable in Win 98?

Perhaps WinXP comes with a tool that will do it for you. I haven't used it (XP), but you'll be looking for something along the lines of NTFS to FAT32 file system converter. A search through Windows Help might help, too. Though I have not seen it do so yet.

You need Partition Magic 7.0 and higher. I would only used this method as a conversion; otherwise back and reformat.

http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/pmdetails.cfm

Convert between File Systems without losing data - With PartitionMagic, convert file systems without losing data. Conversions include FAT to FAT32 and NTFS; FAT32 to FAT; NTFS to FAT and FAT32; Primary to Logical and vice versa; and FAT32 to NTFS under Windows 2000 Professional.

Click to expand...

I have heavily used PM since it came out. It is very good.

Just burn the files to a cd, then write 0's to the drive (If I remember right, fdisk doesn't work on the XP filesystem, and older versions on partition magic won't, either; it's a new version of NTFS, and a pain to get rid of...I used the Maxtor hdd utility, other manufacturors have their own)...come to think of it, I even had probs readin a cd, burned with the xp utility, on 98...xp sux...i think I was able to read them usin 2xExplorer, but not regular windows explorer

Just burn the files to a cd, then write 0's to the drive (If I remember right, fdisk doesn't work on the XP filesystem, and older versions on partition magic won't, either; it's a new version of NTFS,

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, that is not correct. NTFS specifications have not changed... but frankly, MS has done some things in the XP operating system to make average users think that prior versions of NT, and especially Win95, Win98, and WinME are incompatible.

You do need the newer version of Partition Magic for Hard Drives of today, due to the way the BIOS handles the extended memory addressing at the hardware level, but NTFS itself is not new.

There are 3 MS high level formats:

1. FAT
2. FAT-32
3. NTFS

They each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I use FAT32, not NTFS because I thoroughly understand the file structures, and for single user systems without things like data striping and quasi-linux-like file permissions and security from "intrusion", the FAT-32 is better and far more inter-operable. But NTFS does work just fine, maning it is pretty much error free. XP itself is not error free by a long shot, however.

Personally, I use Win2000 (Two independent installations, F: and H:, for backup & repair of each other if something should go wrong) and Win95 OSR 2.1 (C -- with FAT-32, plus Linux at times (though it is currently uninstalled due to lack of space).

An advantage to FAT32 is perfect interoperability between file formats... no conversion is ever ever necessary with NT, Win2K, WinXP, WinME, Win98, Win95. They all run and can even repair any file on the machine.

For other technical reasons too long to explain here, I never install people's machines with NTFS (unless they just really insist on it, like a brother in law did... who re-installed several times then reformatted and used FAT32 like he should have ). Only certain high risk machines (intrusions, usually certain servers and gov't corporate machines) and real power users really need plow the NTFS path. All gamers should have BOTH and NT product (Win2K or XP) and Win9x/ME installed... and in this configuration, just make sure you have all partitions as FAT32 and data interoperability will not be an issue.

Where do I start? Linux, and older versions of NT, and Win95, can read FAT (FAT-16), but not FAT-32. (There is actually another another FAT filesystem, FAT-12, used, as far as I know, only for floppy disks). I have tried a "super fdisk" that i got off the net, that could handle NTFS, EXT2(a type of linux filesystem), and Linux swap partitions, but it didn't handle XP partitions. IIRC, Partition Magic 7 couldn't totally eliminate XP partitions, either, so I think it is a newer version of NTFS. As far as installing NT/2K/XP on a FAT filesystem goes, what's the point? One of the major reasons to use one of these OS's is the fact they separate the /root directory from the /user directory, and set /user permissions. This is not possible, with a FAT filesystem.

Where do I start? Linux, and older versions of NT, and Win95, can read FAT (FAT-16), but not FAT-32. (There is actually another another FAT filesystem, FAT-12, used, as far as I know, only for floppy disks).

Click to expand...

If you are using older versions of NT or Win95 (pre-OSR 2.1), then just create a 2GB FAT32 1st primary partition, and place your boot manager, LILO, System Commander, NTLoader, or whatever in it. Install Win98 (or ME or 95 OSR2.1). Create the rest of your partitions as FAT32. I like a totally separate partition (make it a logical, as there is no need to waste a primary on it) for all temp & working files. This drastically reduces fragmentation rates on the OS drives.

Here is what I do:



The above screenshot was using Partition Magic, btw.

I have tried a "super fdisk" that i got off the net, that could handle NTFS, EXT2(a type of linux filesystem), and Linux swap partitions, but it didn't handle XP partitions. IIRC, Partition Magic 7 couldn't totally eliminate XP partitions, either, so I think it is a newer version of NTFS.

Click to expand...

Partition elimination is a different issue. NTFS is the file system. It is shocking, but believe it or not, there is not agreement among the people that implement the white paper specifications in software about the contents and bits (parts of bytes) that are used in partition definition. Symantec and Partition Magic, for instance, have had different interpretations for years. It turns out that Microsoft made mistakes (or mistaken assumptions) themselves, too, and technically has issues with its own FDISK. Normally, people never notice the subtle errors. But when one maker reads the white paper, and embeds code expecting MS or Symantec, etc. to have done something to the standard, and it ain't, welll..... that can be a problem. One particular trailing byte issue in the last logical partition can make it almost impossible for even FDISK to erase a partition, and might be apt to make people think their hard drive had a mechanical failure.

I have not delved into the MS XP-specific code, as it has not been required as part of my job and I have zero intent of using XP at this time. however, if there are partition issues, I have strong suspicions based on prior experience with similar stuff.

It is possible I have missed (not noticed) a revision in NTFS, as I ahve not looked for it. It will be at the MS site, and there will be a white paper on it if they did.

As far as installing NT/2K/XP on a FAT filesystem goes, what's the point?

Click to expand...

The "ilities".... Compatibility, transportability, maintainability, usability, etc. I would not install an entire machine (e.g., the large, main partitions) with FAT16, but FAT32 is fine.

One of the major reasons to use one of these OS's is the fact they separate the /root directory from the /user directory, and set /user permissions. This is not possible, with a FAT filesystem.

Click to expand...

There are certainly and most definitely advantages to NTFS, but they are not particularly advantageous the the single user/home computer. As you can see on my drives, I am using FAT16 to store this very post (netscape's Java writes all to the E:\temp directory -- which is FAT16, including these keystrokes). Or even small business. Of course, if someone has a specific need for it, fine. But the vast number of people don't need NTFS, and most home users should still used some sort of dual boot to get Win9x or WinME for legacy games, and outright gaming speed, not to mention speed of FAT32.


Anyway, for average users, they should simply format all drives as FAT32 and keep it simple. NTFS is overkill for most readers of this Forum. And a huge advantages is that you can repair an NT installation (like Win2K or XP) from a boot into Win9x.... using Win9x utilities, no less. You can also defrag NT directories from Win9x, replace locked files, kill locked files, and for that matter... you can unzip an entire backed up NT installation inline..... and it will boot flawlessly. You don't need a lick of fancy backup software to do it, either.




About Linux..... that is another issue, as Linux has a very efficient filesystem which is (IMHO) superior to NTFS. Linux Ext2 and Linux Swap are incompatible with the other filesystems, which means you can't view linux partitions (under "normal" circumstances) from MS OSs. BTW, SUSE Linux is my favorite "flavor", though I have all the others, too.


Well, that's probably enough for now.

What he said^
lol, I agree, basically, I wasn't really argueing, just nitpicking. I haven't used NT, or 2K, so I'm not sure what the purpose of dual-booting them would be, since 98se on a 98Lite install works fairly well, with careful use, but I tried XP pro corp. 3-4 times (I'm stubborn), and it's ****, as far as I'm concerned. Same with WinME. If Mandrake Linux doesn't run out of steam, M$ is going to have reason to be very, very worried, in a couple of years. It's really pretty ok, now, except for the lack of games ported to it.

I believe it was Windows2000 that introduced the new NTFS...it is basically the same but does have some differences from the old one. I think the new NTFS is called NTFS5....but everyone calls it just NTFS because for the most part it is the same. (the changes where made for active directories, or so I have heard)

I second (or is that third) the going with FAT32 over NTFS...especially if you go with XP. The way that XP sets up, even Pro, by default, doesn't even start with the file permissions you would expect in NTFS. Everyone basically has access to everyone's file. I don't like that change from 2k to XP....

Now gaming....I fail to see how 98 is faster....especially when the damn thing crashes on me when playing games. I will stick to XP which is superfast compared to 98, IMHObservations.

On the same hardware? I have an Athlon 1.33, 512 MB SDRAM, and a GeForce2 mx/mx400 w/32 MB RAM, 40 GB maxtor ata100, and XP seemed to run like a slug, to me.

I upgraded to XP from ME, and it is much, much quicker. Mind you, ME was about as quick as my ten year old Fiesta.

I tried ME a few times, too(I never had the patience to leave it on my 'puter for over a day at a time), but 98se seems much quicker, than XP, to me. I tried the pro, corporate version, and I always use 98Lite when I install 98, dunno if that makes the difference.

All things being equal, Win98 is superior to all variants of NTx (including XP). But all things being equal means a properly setup, drivered, tweaked system.

The reason is the overhead that NTx incurrs. This is most apparant if your system hardware is pushed to the max to run you game, and expecially 3D shooters with high frame rates and high resolutions at 24 or 32 bpp.

The practical application is less cut and dry, but in general I do not like the Ring0 Interrupts that NTx does in gaming... this can (and does) cause a "buzzing" (or "noise") in the sound channels on many sound cards. You can accomplish the same annoying sound by using a Win9x program capable of such hardware level CPU accesses (e.g, the HLT command).... "Rain" and "Waterfall" do this to reduce CPU cycles & lower chip temperatures.

So for me, I always install Win9x + WinNTx on single user, non-mission critical machines that actually wanna play games. MS is trying very very very very hard to convince people to leave everything prior to XP, and trying to get developers to incorporate new (and stupid) changes into new software, so the software will not run properly on prior versions of Windoze & "convince" people to cave in and "upgrade" to MS's newest Alpha (or maybe Beta) OS called XP. However, most developers are not complying.... they don't want their software to be incompatable with the prior OSs.... so MS has informed Corporate customers that it will simply stop supporting even Windoze 2000 in less than 5 years. Savvy Corporate people are not as gullible as the mass-market of private users, and so XP is not really doing too well among people that know and must maintain OSs.

Anyway, bottom line is that a properly configured & patched & treaked Win98 system runs games faster than a proper XP or Win2K system. But depending on the game, there may or may not be a noticable difference. Anytime XP "outperforms" Win98 in games (and for that matter, in almost any software yet released), it is because 98 (or 95) is not properly tweaked & configured.

I can definitely second the comment about drivers. I got my board and vid card when they where relatively new out, and the different iterations of drivers I have tried have made HUGE differences. With 98, you also have to be careful about apps overwriting .dll's. *GRRRRRR*

You do have to "baby" 98, to an extent...but when it's right, it works very well

And XP works well out of the box better....so, for the normal person, even the power user that doesn't want to spend a lot of time Tweaking the OS for that extra one percent, XP sounds better....BTW, I still feel that XP is better than 98, you just have to havea processor that can handle it (a Duron 750 does quite nicely).

BTW2: I like UNIX for a work enviroment so do think I am a MS fanboy, I just hate seeing people being so one sided...