FAT32 can be read by both OSs. I run dual boot on my spare machine but
xubuntu on main hard disk and win on the second - i save all files to
a FAT32 partition on main HD. I don't know if that's the best way...
just what i did as it's easier to install. I think it probably depends
how big the HDs are - on this machine i'm just using two older drives,
win on a 10g and xubuntu on 40g. The only thing i use windows for is a
CAD app and a scanner that doesn't run on linux.

My main HD with the dual booting Linux and Win7 is 500gb and
the 2nd internal HD I want to use for storage is 250gb. I wouldn't think
the size matters, but I could be wrong.

Anyone else care to chime in?

Linux can read/write to NTFS as well as FAT32 though there are those
that say NTFS writing can still cause file corruption - not seen it
myself but then again you are talking about using this second drive as
a data store so there'll be a lot of writing going on from the Linux
side too. Downside of FAT32 is that maximum file size is 4Gb and on
larger partitions the FAT table can get unwieldy.

So you pays your money and makes your choice really <lol>

As long as the data is backed up regularly then if file corruption
does happen it's not a disaster and can be sorted.

I looked into this three years ago. The consensus appeared to be, use FAT32 for
drives smaller than 255 GB, including flash drives, and use NTFS for larger
drives. However, if there are individual files larger than 2 GB, use NTFS. (I
have one file which is 44 GB.)

Don't use FAT32, its not secure. There is no security for your files on fat32.
Linux can write NTFS without any problem.

Best would be to have Windows on a disk and linux on the other.
Then you could boot with grub on the linux disk. It would avoid windows to mess
with your boot manager...

You could even boot linux and use windows in a virtual machine that take your
windows from the raw disk.

How can you say FAT32 is not secure? If he's going to do what i've
done which is put windoze on HD2 and linux on HD1 (or primary ) then
anyone who wants to access the pc has got to get through a router and
firewall - then login into linux. I used two drives as i had them and
did it as i thought it was easier to dual boot like that. On my main
pc i would probably use one disc and put the other into a remote drive
and use for backups.

I take on board what you say about ntfs... but when i asked a similar
question years ago i was strongly recommended to use FAT32 albeit the
limitation of file size. ntfs is more modern and should be used on
larger disks... also it has journaling which is a better bet by far.
Use FAT32 on small disks, SDHC but nothing more. As for reliability...
backup... backup...backup.

This maybe worth reading... but then again look who the author is.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108

I would just let Ubie format it for you. Unless you are making the second HD as
a slave. Then to me it really does not matter F or NTFS.

Well FAT32 has no security on files anybody can write anything; FAT32 is easily
corrupted in case of brutal shutdown. I would even say FAT32 is a thing of the
past. This is also the case of the article you mentionned KB100108 was written
august 12 2005 ... Not many things stays the same that long...

But if you feel good using FAT32 based on an 2005 article written by the devil,
it's your choice... what can I say ?

If i wanted security i wouldn't use FAT32. For storing memos, letters
etc it's not an issue. i'd also say FAT32 is old, despite it being on
usb sticks and SDHC's i'm switching to ext2 for those. Feel good
factor about FAT32 doesn't come into it. i don't feel good about
anything M$. I've got a win CAD program i like, and a win scanner
which i haven't got round to replacing yet. Linux is vastly superior
to M$ in everything as far as i'm concerned.

There is a lot of difference between "secure" and "reliable". It may not
be an issue with MS products because the terms are unknown to Microsoft
users, they may not understand the difference.

That said if a machine is not connected to the outside world, and one
can live with a blue screen, the use of MS products is no problem. Fact
is I am connected to the outside world with Vista at this moment. I am
writing this on my Ubuntu Linux Box but Garmin fails to support Linux so
I must do something stupid at least once a year to update the maps on
the unit. This will change when it gives me a minute of trouble and
unless Garmin supports Linux at that time I will not re-visit the mistake.