Hi
04 Dec 2000, "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LB> That would seem to indicate that under FAT32 there could be more
LB> sectors per cluster than in FAT16.
?? what does indicate so ??
Have you read my previous messages ??
There I wrote, that the only difference between fat16 and fat32 is, that
fat32 cam handle _MORE_ clusters than fat16. I never said that clusters can
be larger.
Larger clusters would mean more slack. (the maximum clustersize is 64
sectors=32KB)
LB> It would further seem to indicate that under FAT32 there would be far
LB> more slack on a HDD than with FAT16
if your assumption would be right than yes ...
but it is not ...
it's the other way round ...
there can be more clusters with fat32 so, there is no need to make them
big, in order to stay under 655535 clusters ...
I'm really asking myself what you do with my posts ...
I have written this the umpteenth time ...
LB> l.d.
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> Forget diets. Hang around people fatter than you <=-
