From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_048F_01C337FD.40AD2B10
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I'm simply stating the obvious.  Did you see his post where he =
asserted he can claim anything he wants without any responsiblity to =
support his claims while at the same time he can demand others refute = his
claims?  In the case of this specific thread, you can try to spin = his
false statements to be what you wish.  It won't change that he got = it
exactly backwards from the page to which he himself referred.

Rich

  "Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message =
news:3ef4be51{at}w3.nls.net...
  Ah, and now with the ad hominem attack... against someone. Should I =
call
  someone a Nazi to invoke Godwin's Law/Rule?

  Rich wrote:

  >    Anything is possible especially when you have no regard for =
accuracy
  >    and honesty.
  >=20
  > Rich
  >=20
  >   "Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
  >   news:3ef3bbee{at}w3.nls.net... Rich wrote:
  >=20
  >   >    Yes, clueless.  Your earlier message had two mistakes.
  >   >=20
  >   >    One is your claim of exactly the opposite of the page to =
which you
  >   >    now
  >   >    refer.  The page to which you referred clearly describes the
  >   >    conversion in Windows XP as improved over Windows 2000.
  >=20
  >   I think this is the comment from that page that was being referred =
to
  >   (note last sentence):
  >=20
  >   "The problem is that if the FAT volume was formatted using an =
operating
  >   system other than Windows XP, the cluster size of the converted =
volume
  >   is usually 512 bytes. However, if the FAT clusters happen to be =
aligned
  >   at the cluster size boundary, Windows XP Professional can use the
  >   variable cluster size for the converted volume. There has been =
much
  >   discussion on Windows XP forums & newsgroups about which =
conditions
  >   should be met to have "aligned" clusters on a non Windows XP =
formatted
  >   FAT disk. I have personally used the format command of Windows 98
  >   Second Edition Edition to format hard disks on a number of =
occasions,
  >   and >>when I choose to convert to NTFS during the subsequent =
Windows XP
  >   installation, this resulted in a cluster size of 512 bytes. <<"
  >=20
  >=20
  >   >=20
  >   >    The other is a claim of "piglike performance"
due to small =
cluster
  >   >    size.  Again the page to which you referred describes how FAT
  >   >    (though
  >   >    they must mean FAT32) cluster size is often 512 bytes.  The
  >   >    fragmentation and other performance issues to small cluster =
size
  >   >    just
  >   >    as much if not more to FAT.  If you didn't think the =
performance
  >   >    was "piglike" before why are you whining now?
  >=20
  >   Again from the same place:
  >   " Most people will complain of slow performance, only to find out =
that
  >   their NTFS is running with 512 bytes clusters! "
  >=20
  >   FWIW.
  >=20
  >   --
  >   Jeff Shultz

  --=20
  Jeff Shultz

------=_NextPart_000_048F_01C337FD.40AD2B10
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I'm
simply stating the =
obvious. =20
Did you see his post where he asserted he can claim anything he wants = without=20
any responsiblity to support his claims while at the same time he can = demand=20
others refute his claims?  In the case of this specific thread,
you = can try=20
to spin his false statements to be what you wish.  It won't change
= that he=20
got it exactly backwards from the page to which he himself=20
referred.
 
Rich
 

  "Jeff Shultz" <jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
>=20
  wrote in message news:3ef4be51{at}w3.nls.net...Ah=
, and=20
  now with the ad hominem attack... against someone. Should I =
callsomeone a=20
  Nazi to invoke Godwin's Law/Rule?Rich=20
  wrote:>    Anything
is possible especially =
when you=20
  have no regard for accuracy>    and =
honesty.>=20
  > Rich>
>   "Jeff Shultz"
<jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
>=20
  wrote in message>   news:3ef3bbee{at}w3.nls.net...
Rich =

  wrote:> >  
>    Yes,=20
  clueless.  Your earlier message had two =
mistakes.>  =20
  > >  
>    One is your claim of =
exactly=20
  the opposite of the page to which you>  =20
  >   
now>  
>   =20
  refer.  The page to which you referred clearly describes=20
  the>  
>    conversion in Windows =
XP as=20
  improved over Windows 2000.>
>   I think this =
is the=20
  comment from that page that was being referred
to>   =
(note=20
  last sentence):> >  
"The problem is that if =
the FAT=20
  volume was formatted using an
operating>   system =
other than=20
  Windows XP, the cluster size of the converted =
volume>   is=20
  usually 512 bytes. However, if the FAT clusters happen to be=20
  aligned>   at the cluster size
boundary, Windows XP=20
  Professional can use the>   variable
cluster size for =
the=20
  converted volume. There has been
much>   discussion =
on=20
  Windows XP forums & newsgroups about which =
conditions>  =20
  should be met to have "aligned" clusters on a non Windows XP=20
  formatted>   FAT disk. I have
personally used the =
format=20
  command of Windows 98>   Second
Edition Edition to =
format=20
  hard disks on a number of occasions,>   and =
>>when I=20
  choose to convert to NTFS during the subsequent Windows =
XP>  =20
  installation, this resulted in a cluster size of 512 bytes. =
<<">=20
  > >   >
>   =
>   =20
  The other is a claim of "piglike performance" due to small=20
  cluster>  
>    size.  Again =
the page=20
  to which you referred describes how FAT>  =20
  >   
(though>   =
>    they=20
  must mean FAT32) cluster size is often 512 bytes. =20
  The>  
>    fragmentation and other =

  performance issues to small cluster size>  =20
  >   
just>  
>    =
as much=20
  if not more to FAT.  If you didn't think the=20
  performance>  
>    was "piglike" =
before=20
  why are you whining now?>
>   Again from the =
same=20
  place:>   " Most people will
complain of slow =
performance,=20
  only to find out that>   their NTFS is
running with =
512 bytes=20
  clusters! "> >  
FWIW.> =
>  =20
  -->   Jeff
Shultz-- Jeff=20
Shultz

------=_NextPart_000_048F_01C337FD.40AD2B10--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4