Nim Rod spewed:

As I've posted in the past, I favor the use of manufacturer-
provided tools because they usually allow a drive to be FAT-32
formatted with non-standard cluster sizes.

Which have their own downsides.

Which you naturally won't tell us what they are, because you like to
make hit-and-run statements without backing them up.

And thats a stupid way to describe them, its better to describe
them as non Microsoft tools.

What - the world to you is defined based on Micro$oft?

Everything is either "MacroShaft" or "non-MacroShaft" ?

I think there's a good case to be made to install Win-2k
or XP on a drive formatted as FAT-32 as opposed to NTFS.

You're wrong.

Go ahead sparky - tell us why.

Even if the system is not dual-boot. The advantages of
NTFS are largely lost on most single-user or SOHO users.

Wrong when they cant even write the large files that are now
so common with the systems used as PVRs and media players.

Tell us how many files you have on your XP or Vista system that are
4 gb.

Are you aware that most multi-media software is capable of spanning
the 4 gb file limit when working on fat-32 drives?

Why don't you tell us how many USB memory sticks come formatted with
NTFS.

It is easier (and cheaper) to diagnose, fix, detect and
remove malware on a FAT-32 drive than it is for NTFS.

And proper backups are a MUCH better way to handle that
stuff.

Backup strategies are a separate issue.

Only a fool bothers to dual boot 98 and XP.

I see that no dual-booters here want to challenge that comment.