PP?

> From: Gary Wiltshire 
> Doesn't work on PP.
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:45 -0500, Jeff Shultz
>  wrote:
>> 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

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