From: "Robert Comer" 

Please don't, we've had enough of that up in Barktopus to last a lifetime.

- Bob Comer 


"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.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >   "Jeff Shultz" 
wrote in message
> >   news:3ef3bbee{at}w3.nls.net... 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
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>

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