From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_03DC_01C3377B.40FF8AE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.
  >=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.

  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. <<"


  >=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?

  Again from the same place:=20
  " Most people will complain of slow performance, only to find out that
  their NTFS is running with 512 bytes clusters! "

  FWIW.

  --=20
  Jeff Shultz

------=_NextPart_000_03DC_01C3377B.40FF8AE0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Anything
is possible =
especially when=20
you have no regard for accuracy and honesty.
 
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...Ri=
ch=20
  wrote:>    Yes,
clueless.  Your earlier =
message=20
  had two mistakes.>
>    One is your claim =
of=20
  exactly the opposite of the page to which you =
now>   =20
  refer.  The page to which you referred clearly describes=20
  the>    conversion in Windows
XP as improved =
over=20
  Windows 2000.I think this is the comment from that page that =
was being=20
  referred to (notelast sentence):"The
problem is that if =
the FAT=20
  volume was formatted using an operatingsystem other than Windows =
XP, the=20
  cluster size of the converted volume isusually 512 bytes. However, =
if the=20
  FAT clusters happen to be aligned atthe cluster size boundary, =
Windows XP=20
  Professional can use the variablecluster size for the converted =
volume.=20
  There has been much discussion onWindows XP forums & =
newsgroups about=20
  which conditions should be met tohave "aligned"
clusters on a non =
Windows=20
  XP formatted FAT disk. I havepersonally used the format command of =
Windows=20
  98 Second Edition Edition toformat hard disks on a number of =
occasions,=20
  and >>when I choose to convertto NTFS during the
subsequent =
Windows=20
  XP installation, this resulted in acluster size of 512 bytes.=20
  <<">
>    The other is a =
claim of=20
  "piglike performance" due to small
cluster>   =20
  size.  Again the page to which you referred describes how FAT=20
  (though>    they must mean
FAT32) cluster size =
is often=20
  512 bytes.  The>   
fragmentation and other =

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

------=_NextPart_000_03DC_01C3377B.40FF8AE0--

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