Mike Ruskai wrote in a message to Jack Stein:

 AR>While I can think of a lot of reasons to use HPFS rather than FAT, I
 >can not think of any good reason to use FAT rather than HPFS.
  
 JS> uses.  If I recall correctly, HPFS generally takes about 7 megs of
 JS> space for whatever it is doing, I don't know what FAT uses, but to me,
 JS> that would be the only issue.   


 MR> So, for a 100MB ZIP disk, HPFS would be using about the
 MR> following: 

 MR> 1,021,605 bytes for the directory band
 MR>    26,624 bytes for freespace bitmaps
 MR>    51,200 bytes for hotfix sectors
 MR>    10,240 bytes for structures at beginning
 MR>     4,096 bytes for bitmap and hotfix lists
 MR> ----------
 MR> 1,113,765 bytes total

Thanks Mike, that was a lot of good and interesting info I don't believe I've
seen before.  A definite save to my HPFS.txt file.

                                              Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
140/1
278/111