Vista install in ext3 partition?

[Karmic Koala]

Would it be possible to have Vista installed in ext3 partition with the help of e.g. Ext2 Installable File System For Windows?

I know that fat32 would be much faster than NTFS (which is funny because NTFS was meant to replace fat12/16/32) but I have larger files than 4gb so that's not an option. Ext3 would be even faster and it's limit for a single file is from 16GiB to 2TiB.

 

[Karmic Koala]

Just red in here that it is not supported :e : Ext2 IFS For Windows: FAQ:

What features are *not* supported?

• Inodes that are larger than 128 bytes are not supported.
• Access rights are not maintained. All users can access all the directories and files of an Ext2 volume. If a new file or directory is created, it inherits all the permissions, the GID and the UID from the directory where it has been created. There is one exception to this rule: a file (but not a directory) the driver has created always has cleared "x" permissions, it inherits the "r" and the "w" permissions only. See also section "What limitations arise from not maintaining access rights?".
• The driver does not allow accessing special files at Ext2 volumes, the access will be always denied. (Special files are sockets, soft links, block devices, character devices and pipes.)
• Alternate 8.3-DOS names are not supported (just because there is no place to store them in an Ext2 file system). This can prevent legacy DOS applications, executed by the NTVDM of Windows, from accessing some files or directories.
• Currently the driver does not implement defragging support. So defragmentation applications will neither show fragmentation information nor defragment any Ext2 volume.​

• This software does not achieve booting a Windows operating system from an Ext2 volume.

• LVM volumes are not supported, so it is not possible to access them.​

Well.. does anybody else have a different solution ?

 

[Ex_Brit]

It simply isn't compatible with Vista, as it's a "Linux thing". Why would you want to install on such a system in the first place?

Try Google and you'll get lots of hits.

Your statement that FAT32 would be a lot faster than NTFS is based on....? It would also be a lot less secure. FAT32 is a step backwards in both time and safety.

The software you linked enables access to Ext2, it doesn't actually put Vista physically on an Ext2 partition. At least that's how I read the description.

The NTFS system handles large files just fine.

 

[Karmic Koala]

Heh, you didn't know that fat32 is faster than ntfs in the end?

And I know that NTFS can handle large files. The way it handels them is just the reason that NTFS is so bad format.

 

[Ex_Brit]

Heh, you didn't know that fat32 is faster than ntfs in the end?

I don't believe that is true.

And I know that NTFS can handle large files. The way it handels them is just the reason that NTFS is so bad format.

Well it's the one that Vista and Win 7 prefer, so it's the status guo for now I guess.

 

[Karmic Koala]

I don't believe that is true.

Have you heard the term fragmentation before ? And just saying that from what I've tested is that running windows and it's programs from fat32 is much faster. Running it from virtualbox on linux (ext4) is even faster. All my settings/drivers/updates were the same of course .

I know that this is really weird and shouldn't be the case at all because practically programs never know what their file system is.

In principle it could of course be possible that the operating system's file handling interface has been implemented poorly and/or for example the software chunk that handles the file systems is buggy. In this case, perhaps in theory it could be possible to get some kind of problems with the software, especially if the program's error handling has also been implemented poorly. But practically these things are tested - especially in commercial systems - so thoroughly that this isn't the case in real world.

Oh well, maybe there is something more than what meets my eyes :/.

Well it's the one that Vista and Win 7 prefer, so it's the status guo for now I guess.

Yeah, that's our beloved M$ .

 

[Ex_Brit]

Tried various flavours of Linux 3 times and each time wrecked my machine...at that point I swore never again. Well BSOD....same difference.

Anyway good luck.

 

[Karmic Koala]

Maybe I should just be satisfied with NTFS.. I can't have fat because I have 7gb files. :/

But I could just run windows from virtualbox with arch (linux). That is probably the only solution. I just need to go through the installation/configuration of windows again ..

 

[Ex_Brit]

I still don't understand why this is concerning you so much unless you've been reading some misinformation somewhere.

Read the table further down this Wikipedia page: Comparison of file systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[H2SO4]

Maybe I should just be satisfied with NTFS.. I can't have fat because I have 7gb files. :/

NTFS is way faster than FAT32 for volumes of any significant size - over 32MB in particular. It is also a transactional, journaling FS, unlike FAT. It provides security.

FAT is completely obsolete except for compatibility with devices which can't handle NTFS (media players in particular).

 

[Karmic Koala]

It does not concern me... I just like to do things exactly the opposite as normal windows users would ...

And STILL I tested running windows in VBox with fat32 and NTFS and fat32 was faster. You can complain and argue about it as much as you like but that was my result, end of story.

 

[Ex_Brit]

Have it your way, I refuse to argue.

 

[robertbeal]

Just to add a few thoughts.

a) If you're not primarily using Linux, then don't even consider EXT3 or EXT4. In fact if you run EXT2IFS or EXT2FSD in Windows, then they run the above as an EXT2 partition which means you won't have any journaling. There's more potential for corruption although I've not had any yet.

b) NTFS because of journalling won't corrupt like FAT32 can. It "ideally" shouldn't fragment but does, but certainly won't fragment as much as FAT32 does.

I'd go with NTFS no question. FAT32 is old, dated, and obsolete to an extent.

According to Tom's Hardware you get around a 5% speed increase with FAT32, but even so, I still wouldn't pick FAT32.