When choosing a file system for a Windows 2000 Server computer that must support file compression and does not need to dual boot with other operating systems, which file system should you select?

Introduction / Context:
Choosing the correct file system for a Windows 2000 Server installation has long-term consequences for security, performance, and manageability. The question focuses on a scenario where you specifically require support for file compression and do not need to dual boot the server with any other operating system. This is a classic exam scenario aimed at testing your understanding of the capabilities and limitations of different file systems: FAT, FAT32, HPFS, and NTFS.

Given Data / Assumptions:

The server will run Windows 2000 Server as its primary operating system.
File compression is required on the volumes used by the server.
Dual booting with other operating systems is not required, so compatibility constraints are reduced.
You must choose between FAT, FAT32, HPFS, and NTFS as the file system.
Security, advanced features, and manageability are important considerations in a server environment.

Concept / Approach:
NTFS (New Technology File System) is the advanced file system designed for Windows NT, Windows 2000, and later versions. It supports file and folder permissions, encryption, disk quotas, and file compression. FAT and FAT32 are simpler file systems without built-in advanced security or compression features. HPFS (High Performance File System) is associated with OS/2 and is not the standard choice for Windows 2000 Server. Since dual booting is not required, you can select the file system that gives you the richest feature set, which is NTFS in this case.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: List the requirements: support for file compression and no need to share volumes with other operating systems. Step 2: Recall that NTFS supports features such as file-level compression, security permissions, quotas, and encryption. Step 3: Remember that FAT and FAT32 do not support NTFS-style compression or advanced security features; they are mostly used for compatibility or small removable media. Step 4: Note that HPFS is not commonly used in Windows 2000 Server environments and does not represent the recommended choice. Step 5: Conclude that NTFS is the only file system in the options that fully meets the requirement for compression and is designed for Windows 2000 Server.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider how you would actually configure compression on a Windows 2000 Server. In practice, you right-click a file or folder, open Properties, and then enable compression on the NTFS volume. This feature is not available on FAT or FAT32 volumes. Because there is no dual boot requirement, there is no reason to choose the less capable FAT or FAT32 file systems. This real-world behavior reinforces that NTFS is the correct choice.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
FAT – Lacks support for NTFS-style compression, advanced permissions, and other modern features required in a server environment.

FAT32 – Provides better support for large volumes than FAT but still does not support NTFS-like compression and advanced security features.

HPFS – Associated with OS/2 and is not the standard or recommended file system for Windows 2000 Server deployments.

Common Pitfalls:
Some learners think that FAT32 might support compression because of its use on some removable devices, but built-in transparent compression is an NTFS feature. Another common mistake is to prioritize compatibility over functionality even when dual boot is not required. For servers, especially in exam scenarios, NTFS is almost always the expected answer when advanced features such as security and compression are needed.

Final Answer:
The correct file system to choose for Windows 2000 Server when you require file compression and do not need dual boot capability is NTFS.