Loren Lockwood wrote: > Good idea, Duncan. Actually I do have a spare partition which I could > use exactly in that way. The only real reason I am using NTFS under W2K > is that it is apparently more stable than FAT32. I have had BIG > problems with FAT32 in the past (under W98SE). I think that has more to do with Windows 98 than FAT32. When it's stable, it's reasonably stable. When it isn't, you've got a real problem trying to sort out what the problem is. Note that despite the names, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are *very* different creatures. I have had no problems with FAT 32 on either Windows 2000 or Linux. James. -- James Wilkinson | You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, Exeter Devon UK | but only because your brakes are defective. E-mail address: james | @westexe.demon.co.uk |
