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