Andy Roberts wrote to Murray Lesser on 10-24-1999

AR>  AR>> While I can think of a lot of reasons to use HPFS rather than FAT, I
AR>  AR>> can not think of any good reason to use FAT rather than HPFS.
AR> 
AR> Ok I was wrong about that.  Very small partitions (under 80MB),
AR> removable media such as floppies and ZIP drives, and a very few
AR> other considerations, which probably aren't worth the hassle in most
AR> cases, do favor FAT over HPFS.
AR> 
AR>  ML> If your whole partition will contain only a few long sequential
AR>  ML> files,
AR> 
AR> Provided those files don't exceed the DOS/FAT limited 8.3 file
AR> name. 

And both of you keep talking around the simplest, most effective use
of HPFS: the resistance to destructive fragmentation that HPFS enjoys,
assuming the disk is not filled beyond the 80-85% point. Since the
question originated with references to a BBS opration, that seems to
be even more significant which brings the discussion full circle:  the
best FS for a given application is the one that works best for that
application.

AR> Humm.. I keep thinking about subscribing to DevCon, but I'm
AR> stingy.  

Maybe this will appeal to the Scrooge in you:  I just got a renewal
notice where they were offering a 20% discount.  You can probably talk
them into that discount if you call and work on them.  Of course, the
1-800 number now connects you to an order desk in Copenhagen so your
luck may depend on how well the operatore speaks English.

Will Honea 
--- Maximus/2 2.02