On 14 Sep 99, at 12:21, Changhsu P. Liu wrote:

> 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.

  This is going to depend on the relative speeds of CPU and hard
drive subsystem.  Using DriveSpace, for instance, requires more CPU
to decompress the data, but needs to read less data.  FAT32 may also
need to read less actual data, but may have to read more FAT entries
in order to *locate* the data it does need to read.


On 14 Sep 99, at 13:36, Ben Moore wrote:

> You cannot use drive space on a FAT32 drive.

  I'm not certain this is true.  DriveSpace volume files *are*
limited to 1GB in size (nominally 2GB of data capacity), so putting
one on a FAT32 partition is generally wasteful -- but I think I
remember doing it successfully at one point.

                  Visit our website regularly for FAQs,
               articles, how-to's, tech tips and much more
                  http://nospin.com - http://nospin.org