From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02E3_01C31A3F.F6CD5720
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Yes.

Rich

  "John Cuccia"  wrote in message =
news:25l5cvc0b1nc4arhdu9uns4kgq8vvi36mg{at}4ax.com...
  On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:27:23 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >   A native formatted NTFS partition is better than one converted =
from FAT/FAT32 both in efficiency and security.=20

  I understand the security part, but why is native NTFS more efficient
  than a converted partition?  Cluster size?
------=_NextPart_000_02E3_01C31A3F.F6CD5720
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
Yes.
 
Rich
 

  "John Cuccia" <jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>">mailto:jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com">jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  news:25l5cvc0b1n=
c4arhdu9uns4kgq8vvi36mg{at}4ax.com...On=20
  Wed, 14 May 2003 16:27:23 -0700, "Rich" <{at}>=20
  wrote:>   A native formatted
NTFS partition is =
better=20
  than one converted from FAT/FAT32 both in efficiency and security. =
I=20
  understand the security part, but why is native NTFS more =
efficientthan a=20
  converted partition?  Cluster
size?

------=_NextPart_000_02E3_01C31A3F.F6CD5720--

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