You know -- there was at one time a good rationale for using a FAT
partition for Windows 2000. The file maintenance overhead on FAT is
significantly less and gave a decent increase in performance.
The drawback, of course, was sacrificing the permissions and access
control allowed by NTFS. But, if the drive volume wasn't shared out, it
was a decent tradeoff. Of course, this was before remote desktop
administration and stuff like that.
B.
George wrote:
I have used ntfsresize, from various versions of Knoppix boot disks,
many times. See:
http://wsms.wikiplanet.com/mediawiki/index.php/Ntfsresize
Any dangers? Yes. User stupidity.
Also, I suppose some Windows 2000 installs will be on FAT partitions
instead of ntfs partitions.
George
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brinkley Harrell
http://www.fusemeister.com
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
