From: Jeff Shultz 

Rich wrote:

>    Yes, clueless.  Your earlier message had two mistakes.
>
>    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.

I think this is the comment from that page that was being referred to (note
last sentence):

"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. <<"


>
>    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?

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! "

FWIW.

--
Jeff Shultz

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