From: Jeff Shultz 

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