Gee, John -- you just described my setup. I have a 160MB permanent Win95 swap file on my FAT32 non-SCSI single partition 4.3GB C drive. With my 64MB of RAM, I haven't noticed any degradation of performance; my swap file is rarely used. On the other hand, I do notice the convenience of the single partition, quite a lot. I, personally, would never go back to 2GB partitions or FAT16. Roxanne Pierce R2 Systems, San Diego mailto:[log in to unmask] > -----Original Message----- > From: John Chin Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 10:03 > > The larger clusters give better performance. Can you > picture a 160MB Permanent Windows Swap File running > on 4K clusters rather than 32K clusters (I admit hating > cluster sizes larger than 32K; also, I usually stay FAT16 > for compatibility reasons). Think of the performance hit on > an IDE drive, which requires CPU use for disk management.