From: Ellen K. 

Oh, him.   

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:55:34 -0400, Gary Wiltshire 
wrote in message :

>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