I don't understand how it can run fine on fat32 but can't see fat32--but
then who cares? I don't support NT4 and I violated my own rule of telling
people to ask their system questions in the appropriate system group rather
than attempting to muddle through the question.

Signature
Regards
Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
> >On further thought, I doubt you can upgrade to NT4 since it uses NTFS
> >partitions while W98 uses Fat 16/32 partitions.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 'What, gender roles and abuse?'
> >-------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
cquirke (MVP Win9x) - 30 Aug 2004 19:46 GMT
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:51:42 -0500, "Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com>
>I don't understand how it can run fine on fat32 but can't see fat32
Older NT versions support FAT16 but not FAT32; later versions support
both FAT16 and FAT32. NT extends the Win9x FAT16 2G limit to 4G by
using 64k clusters, but this isn't compatible with DOS or Win9x.
>but then who cares?
Anyone who would rather avoid NTFS, and there are good reasons to do
that. It's bad enough that XP artificially shoves users into NTFS
without inaccurate advice leading down the same path ;-p
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -