Hi
28 Nov 2000, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SH> I am using the same hard drive as used on my 386. Only a 16 bit
>> SH> FAT, not 32 bit. My OS is Caldera DR-DOS, v. 3.02. Does the 16
>> SH> bit FAT cause it to run much slower than it perhaps otherwise
>> SH> would with a 32 bit FAT?
>> Exactly the other way round ...
>> FAT32 is slower ...
SH> If that is the case, then why does anyone use a 32 bit FAT?
because you have a maximum of 4.294.967.296 clusters instead of 65.535 !
Maximum partition size for fat16 is 2 GB (with 32KB clusters)
FAT32 can use _MUCH_ larger partitions, and simultanously have smaller
clusters.
Most people don't want to have 40 1 GB partitions, only to keep clustersize
at an acceptable rate,
or 20 2GB (max for fat16), when they buy a new 40 GB HDD.
(not even speaking of the fact that DOS/Win9X can't handle 40 drive
letters)
SH> Are there any advantages at all in using a 32 bit FAT vs. a 16 bit
SH> FAT?
larger partitions possible see above
This was only a hotfix from M$, because they did not want to add a real FS
to Win9X (eg NTFS)
so they decided to alter FAT.
SH> Maybe the reason has to do with having to deal with long file
SH> names. I don't know. Is a 16 bit FAT inefficient for dealing with
SH> LFNs?
Every FAT is inefficient with M$ long file names !!!
This was another hotfix.
LFN is simply an entry marked as label+some other attributes ....
by not LFN aware programs these entries are ignored.
The only difference between fat15 and 32 is the maximum number of clusters.
SH> Regards,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> Adam's Rib: The original bone of contention <=-
