>I read in Win98 Bible that they compare the speed of 3 setups:
>FAT16+drivespace compressed, FAT16, FAT32. They found the first one to be
>marginal faster than the FAT16 while FAT32 to be the slowest. Anyone can
>verify that claim? Unfortunately, I just recently convert some of my
>partitions to FAT32.
FAT32 may be slower than FAT16, but it's a much more efficient use of
available space, without the screw-ups common with drive space.
-Peter
The PCBUILD web site always needs good submissions. If
you would like to contribute to the website, send any
hardware tech tips or hardware reviews to:
[log in to unmask]