From: Gary Wiltshire 

A (ahem) gentleman who sees Nazis everywhere.

On 23 Jun 2003 21:00:20 GMT, Ellen K  wrote:

>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