howtogeek — 2013-07-31T13:39:02-04:00 — #1
doctordeere — 2013-07-31T17:49:21-04:00 — #2
WinME got a bum rap. I did two things with every install and it always ran fine (for me) - disable 'System Restore' and set 'Automatic Updates' to 'Notify Only'. Once I started doing that, no more (major) issues. Many folk did and still do disagree, but haters gonna hate.
raphoenix — 2013-07-31T17:58:48-04:00 — #3
I always used FAT with XP.
That way, could use older Ghost versions to make O/S images and also didn't have to put up with HDD ntfs permissions and properties, etc......
I would use FAT now if Win 7/8 would allow it as it makes running a personal (1) user system much easier.
ADDED: I know others will disagree so save your typing. (LOL) (LOL)
nsdcars5 — 2013-08-01T05:50:51-04:00 — #4
Some RTM copies of Windows XP used FAT32 by default.
geek — 2013-08-01T10:06:29-04:00 — #5
I have always thought that Windows Vista got a bad rap. If you ran it on modern hardware, it ran really well.
Windows 7 was really just a UI updated version of Vista with a lot of annoyance fixes. The underlying operating system was very similar, but everybody loves 7.
One of those instances where Microsoft just failed the launch by letting PC makers put it on underpowered computers.
jackrock — 2013-08-01T10:27:24-04:00 — #6
Maybe this is why I hated it so much. When I ran ME, I wasn't edumacated well enough to turn these off (or even know what they were).
jackrock — 2013-08-01T10:29:32-04:00 — #7
I find more updated than just the UI. Things like the UAC was more finely tunable (rather than just on or off). The gadgets were annoying, but they are still an option in Win7. It also runs smoother than Vista on the same hardware, in my experience.
There are a lot more, but in my experience, it shows there was a lot more between Vista and 7 than just a UI change.
jackrock — 2013-08-01T10:34:01-04:00 — #8
I wouldn't say I disagree, per se. I disagree with MY situation using FAT, but not yours. I fully understand why somebody would choose FAT over NTFS for personal systems. My major beef with a personal system is the file size limitation (I frequently deal with 8+GB files).
But yes, there's something to say for simplicity.
geek — 2013-08-01T10:43:04-04:00 — #9
All of the same UAC tweaks were available on Vista, they just weren't in a pretty UI.
rossoq — 2013-08-01T12:20:48-04:00 — #10
My new XP Home PC, 10 years ago, has FAT 32.
geek — 2013-08-01T12:59:06-04:00 — #11
I think you could choose FAT32 in XP home or install on top of a FAT32 partition, but in general it would choose NTFS as the default for a new partition.
howard_blair — 2013-08-06T17:16:02-04:00 — #12
Wrong. The last OS to use FAT (aka FAT16) was Windows 95. Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, 98SE, and ME used FAT32 by default on drives larger than 512MB, and it is still in use on a majority of USB drives, SD cards, and other removable media.
nsdcars5 — 2013-08-07T06:18:02-04:00 — #13
Am I allowed to say "wow"?
doctordeere — 2013-08-07T19:00:50-04:00 — #14
Well Jesus H. Christ... if you want to pick nits to that anal extreme, FAT16 isn't FAT by your logic. The original FAT was 8 bit, developed in the 1970's. FAT16 didn't come to be until around 1983 or 84.
howard_blair — 2013-08-08T14:46:41-04:00 — #15
Well, in that case, there's also FAT12, used on floppy disks, and Microsoft's new EXFAT, used as a drop-in replacement for FAT32. 8-bit FAT precedes MS-DOS by a few years, and MS-DOS 1.0 used FAT12; MS-DOS 3.3 used FAT12B.
faulkner132 — 2013-08-08T15:02:50-04:00 — #16
@Howard_Blair isn't totally off-base. I guessed Windows 95 for the same reasoning ([FAT] Not= [FAT32]).
Just overthinking the question I guess.