# Win98 installed on an NTFS partition?



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

Recently on another forum (hardware) There was a discussion and well actually an argument where in one individual went to great lengths saying that it was possible to install and run Win98 on an NTFS partition. This individual went to great lengths as do all of his posts to prove that he was right and that all of the links he posted proved it so. These were of course MS knowledge base links. And in each and everyone of them it stated that you could not do an install of this type. The question is does anyone except this individual have any knowledge of how to do this? I am not talking about a patch file to allow 98 to read ntfs files, I am talking about installing and running 98 on an NTFS partition. Maybe it is possible and this fellow knows something that Microsoft doesnt know.


----------



## aric49 (Apr 25, 2004)

Hmm.. Intresting concept.. But i personally dont see how that is possible..


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

THis is my point entirely. If Microsoft says it aint possible then they as writers of the OS should know what they are talking about


----------



## Covenant (Apr 2, 2004)

Let's look at some assumptions and facts.

1.) Assumption - It is possible to install Windows 98 on an NTFS partition.

2.) Assumption - Microsoft knows it is possible...(After all...Windows 98 and NTFS have both been around for a long enough time to figure out these anomalies, and if someone is going to figure it out first...they are the most likely candidate.)

***Fact*** Microsoft states on its knowledge base that this is impossible.

3.) Assumption - Microsoft is concealing the truth for a particular advantage.

***Fact*** No such advantage exists (The use of NTFS over FAT32 has never been a decisive factor in someone upgrading to Windows 2000 or XP.)

***Fact*** 99% of good techs state that doing this is also impossible, or the way to do this has not been figured out by them.

4.) Assumption - The tech that claims to have figured this out is smarter than we are...probably also taller and better in bed.

So I hope this gets you thinking on where this tech was actually going with this...either he simply wanted to fake technical superiority hoping someone would buy into it without calling him on the specifics...or he just simply misunderstood something he read on the web.

There's my 2 cents...


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

Actually there was enough pressure on him at the time to get him to change his tactics a bit. He was stating that what he was saying was fact as though he has done this. To he started misquoting MS Knowledge base articles (He tends to offer vry verbose misquoted answers to peoples problems seldom helping and never using anything close to an original thought. Some one will post a link, he will go popy past said link and use it as though he was the orinal speaker. Now he stated tht he never said what he originally said but that it is still possible. So I think you hit the nail on the head in that he is trying to play with the big boys while having the capabilites in fact of a toddler. I just wanted to confirm everything I read in his links to make sure That I was truly understanding what I read.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 2, 2004)

In his pursuit for popularity I just hope he helped more people than he messed up. Which is most likely the case considering how great a tool "cut and paste" actually is...

Thank God for Google...right...?


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

problem is his cut and paste was rarely ever relavant to the question or problem except very peripherally, and most often offered no solution. It is like Lookit me ma I are a puter genius.


----------



## john1 (Nov 25, 2000)

Hi Dustyjay and anyone else looking in,

I have heard of this before a long time ago, and the discussion
involved Win95(b) not Win98/98se/M.E.
Many people believe that it is shortcomings with the 'FAT 16' and
the 'FAT 32' file system which is behind the blue screens, crashes
and seize-ups that are the curse of the WIN 95/98/98se/M.E. range.

I think that poor programming is also to blame, but if NTFS can
kick in when some poor programming causes a failure of some kind,
and restore the situation to that beforehand, then it would not
matter much whatever the cause of the problem really was, if NTFS
could respond like that.

As to whether or not the Windows systems 95/95b/98/98se/M.E can only
use the File Allocation Tables FAT16 or FAT32, that i rather doubt.
It may require some alteration of bits here and there, but the
calling up of files to do a little job is the basis of computer
activity, so i would think that so long as the appropriate file is
called, that would be workable.

Also, there is a remark in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS about
third party utilites which enable Win 9x systems to read NTFS files
which they do not normally do.

There are apparently five versions of NTFS and also a version called
'Captive NTFS' which ties in somehow with Linux.

I'm sure we all recall Microsoft declaring that Internet Explorer is
an integral part of 98/98se and has to be installed along with it.
And that it would not work without IE, which could not be removed.
After 98-lite became popular, they pulled back and said that 98/98se
was designed to have I.E. installed with it.

So i dunno, I'm not convinced that NTFS could not be applied to WIN
95/98/98se/M.E but i am no expert.
However it would take a bit more than denials from Microsoft to
pursuade me that it could not be done.

I'm not very conversant with the role of the registry, but i do know
that WIN 3.1/3.11 had no registry. I think the registry is very
involved in deciding which system files are called into play with
particular programs, but i'm not sure about that. With Win3.1 i think
that each program had to carry whatever files it needed to run, as it
could not just call them up from the H.D. when wanted.
Such a system could probably be used with programs for Win 98/98se
although it might be a touch heavy on HD space, still, Hard Drives
are getting bigger and cheaper these days, so it could be plausible.

From what i recall about that lengthy and involved discussion about
running Win95/95b using NTFS, i think they concluded it could be done
but none of the people involved were prepared to work on it enough
to actually do it. Most of what was said was over my head.
(still is really)

I was not that interested then, but i am now.
So if anyone is liable to try these things, i would be willing to
pitch in with what little help i can offer.

Best regards, John


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I don't see why it would be "impossible" to hack it together...its just a different filesystem. VMWare might help as well.


----------



## Covenant (Apr 2, 2004)

Very informative John...

I was unaware of quite a bit of what you typed there...,but the actual root of the conversation involved getting Win98 to work with NTFS without patches. Altering the OS would also constitute patching.

As far as the internet explorer reference in your post...that would fall in with #3 of my previous post. The particular white lie on Microsoft's part was due to their vested interest in people using IE. This makes total sense to me, but since I cannot place a vested interest in whether we use NTFS or FAT32 I believe there is none...therefore no reason to lie...and without a reason to lie (unless it's just pathological or compulsive) they probably wouldn't.

Thanks for putting the time you did on that post...


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

That is the whole thing, yes you can get patchs to allow win98 to read NTFS files. But From a little experimentation here, Win98 will require a repartitioning of the drive just to install reverting it to a fat system. You can install both os's to different folders (xp and 98) but xp will be installed to a fat partition or you can install both to different partitions one NTFS and the other fat. then patch 98 so that it will read NTFS files.


----------



## pseye (Dec 11, 2005)

dustyjay said:


> That is the whole thing, yes you can get patchs to allow win98 to read NTFS files. But From a little experimentation here, Win98 will require a repartitioning of the drive just to install reverting it to a fat system. You can install both os's to different folders (xp and 98) but xp will be installed to a fat partition or you can install both to different partitions one NTFS and the other fat. then patch 98 so that it will read NTFS files.


you can get patches here.
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsDos.html
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsWindows98.html


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

The particular statementwas taht you could install and run Win98 on an NTFS partition and it would run as it should. Not that you can get patches to make 98 read and write to an ntfs partiton. Yes there are hacks available to allow you access to NTFS from Win 98. Has anyone got references to Installing and running Win98 to an NTFS partition? I have not been able to get my Full Install copy to install to an ntfs partition. It either fails or it requires a repartition to Fat 32 File system.


----------



## pseye (Dec 11, 2005)

http://www.topshareware.com/Paragon-NTFS-for-Windows-download-2686.htm
there is always a solution. the link below offers one?
http://www.mount-everything.com/ntfsw/

perhaps this is what was meant in earlier discussion.


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

This is not the question. One more the statement was "Win 98 Can be installed on an NTFS partition." It is agreed that you can get software patches to enable you to read and write to an NTFS partition while using Win98. This is not in dispute. What the dispute was is that the statement was made that "Win 98 can be installed ON an NTFS partition. And it will work." If you read the statement as it was written you will understand what is being asked. I am not looking for a patch. I am looking for a reference to instructions on how to install Win 98 to an NTFS partition and have it operate from that NTFS partition. I maintain it is not possible.


----------



## pseye (Dec 11, 2005)

98 not installed to ntfs drive. 98 creates virtual ntfs drive with ntfs drivers not security
mods used in nt.


----------



## Quiet1 (Dec 12, 2005)

dustyjay said:


> Recently on another forum (hardware) There was a discussion and well actually an argument where in one individual went to great lengths saying that it was possible to install and run Win98 on an NTFS partition. This individual went to great lengths as do all of his posts to prove that he was right and that all of the links he posted proved it so. These were of course MS knowledge base links. And in each and everyone of them it stated that you could not do an install of this type. The question is does anyone except this individual have any knowledge of how to do this? I am not talking about a patch file to allow 98 to read ntfs files, I am talking about installing and running 98 on an NTFS partition. Maybe it is possible and this fellow knows something that Microsoft doesnt know.


http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243896 explains how this is down by the
use of a small fat32 partition left active at the beginning of the drive.


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

I wonder if maybe I am not explaining the question correctly. I do not want to add a small Fat 32 partition, I do not want to patch Win98 to read and write to NTFS. The statement was made as follows "It is possible to install Win98 to an NTFS Partition." This is the problem. Several people say yes it is, but you have to make a fat 32 partition then patch Win 98 to read/write to a NTFS Partition on which Win98 is NOT, obviously installed if you make a fat 32 partition then patch Win98. Does this make it clear now? I am seeking information on how it is possible to do what this fellow said was possible and how to do it.


----------



## Quiet1 (Dec 12, 2005)

Perhaps you misunderstood what that person was stating. Generally 98 would have no
access to ntfs due to the time-date stamp and security access seen there. The article
describes how to first create an active fat32 partition and custom install the Windows
directory to the larger ntfs to coexist with NT 4.0 or higher. 98's boot codes are stored
on the small fat32. NT can not boot however until the larger ntfs partition is later made
to be active. Then 98 will not run at that time.


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

Actually what you are saying is exactly the point. This person stated that Win 98 will install and run natively to an NTFS partition. Yes there are work arounds to it. But to just pop the Win98 cd in and have it install without any patches, hacks or work arounds is not possible. And this is what this person stated. There was no mention of dual boot systems, there was not initial mention of a work around or a patch until later inthe discussion. The final outcome was that yes you could install patches or other software to allow Win98 to read and even write to an NTFS partition. And as you have pointed out there is a way that you could install 98 to an NTFS partition sa long as it is partially installed to a Fat partition it will work in a dual boot situation.


----------



## Quiet1 (Dec 12, 2005)

What is it 2gb or 2.5gb as the largest the older fdisk can make by itself. Does the fat
2gb stay hidden with the C:\Windows? Or is it the small fat becomes C: with 98 going
into a D:\Windows custom install? You are better off with separate partitions anyways.
The only advantage of F32 over F16 was being able to read larger drives.


----------

