Am I missing something? (NTFS vs FAT)

[KHT]

I`m upgrading a W2k Server network. The workstations are a mix match of W98 and NT4`s and we are upgrading the WS`s to W2k Pro.

All is going well but I went to clean out and format the first NT station for a clean install of W2k Pro.

When I looked at the partitions, (Maxtor 30 G, C:- D: partitions-pretty basic) it went like this. C:- 4G FAT (yes FAT) D:-26 G (NTFS)

The OS and all programs were on the FAT partition and the NTFS was completely empty.

I checked the other NT4 and it was setup the same way.

Is there a reason someone would install NT4 on FAT and not NTFS that I don`t know about? If so, someone please educate me.

[mairving]

Who knows. It could have been done so that a machine could dual boot. It could also be that the drives were all setup this way because they didn't know what OS would be installed on them. Just delete both partitions and reformat using NTFS.

[KHT]

Yes I`ve done that and installed but this has been nagging at me.

These WS`s were custom built by a supposedly "hotshot" tech.

[mairving]

For a workstation, giving someone a lot of space (30GB) is almost asking for trouble with some users. It causes people to fill up their hd with mp3's and save files locally instead of the network. Having smaller local space can force the issue a little. Not sure why FAT was used unless all of the drives were setup the same way. I would be curious to see if the 98 machines are setup with the same partitioning scheme.

[KHT]

No, the 98`s were setup by me.

This is a low key network, security, on the LAN side anyway, is of little concern and easily monitored.

It just struck me as to why FAT was used instead of NTFS even if disk management\restriction was an issue.

BTW, the D: (NTFS) drive was available to the user and not hidden or restricted.