There are some incompatibility in some oolllddd programs and I do mean old.
Time to move on. Most old DOS can not be used on a high end system any ways
because you can not slow them down enough since they were programmed to be
used by systems running a hundred times slower.

While we are on the subject of FAT32, I always read M$ claims of how much
was saved. Did not really believe it since I always ran a program to let me
know how much "slack" there was by program, directory and hard drive. Never
seemed that great. Well, I accidentally fdisked my master copy hard drive in
FAT(16) (parenthesis because it is really called FAT or FAT32), When I
noticed it, I xcopied to a spare hard drive, Fdisked to FAT32, formatted and
xcopied back the files. Results are of 6297 files for applications only,
i.e. no data files which are usually smaller and create even greater slack.

FAT(16) - 685 MB used; FAT32 - 548 MB used. That is 25% less space used. Did
not believe it. Had to check and re-check it twice. Yes in today's age of
$1/MB drives that may not seem so big. But my master drive is only a 1 G. So
that gives me a significant amount of space to put any new required
programs. Or another view would be a 5.5 G hard drive would need to be a 7 G
hard drive (with data on it also).

As I address the theoretical slow down of data transfer previously, I would
like to say that going from a FAT16 to FAT32 took the same within
measurability by a stop watch as the copying from a FAT32 to a FAT32. 9 3/4
minutes for the above example.

Just thought inquisitive minds might want to know <G>.

WRT going to your friend with a FAT32 hard drive and it not working...why
would you put your hard drive in your friends computer? If you did, take the
one that has the OS on it and use it as the C drive and then you~can~read
his hard drive. If you are taking about a startup disk, take your own...you
should have at least a half dozen made and waiting to be used for an
emergency.

The only down sides I see in FAT32 is that you can not compress it and that
is dubious down side since I never recommend compression. I just did one
yesterday and as usual, after compression would not boot because of errors.
Compression in Win9x is too touchy. The only other down side would be on a
dual boot system with NT (or for God's sake Win3x) since NT can not read
FAT32.

Daniel Wysocki
Twin*.*Star Computers
770-498-2582 /800-816-0663
[log in to unmask]
Fast - Reliable - Wallet Friendly

-----Original Message-----
From: Tatiana Kornienko <[log in to unmask]>

>
>>   And I have heard people say that with 16 bit games they do not run
>>   well under FAT32.
>
>Old Dos games may not work.
>
>
>>   My understanding was that FAT 32 had to do with how files are stored on
the
>>   hard drive, namely reducing cluster size to 4K.
>
>It's depended from sort of your data, you not always get advaneges.
>
>If you go to your friend with disk of FAT32 and your friend has
>system disk of Fat16 you can't comunicate. So on my opinion Fat16 now
>is preferable.
>
>

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html