On 27 Jul 99, at 11:22, Uzi Paz wrote:

> On my win95a (there is no Hebrew enabled Win95b) one of the reasons
> of making smaller partitions was to make block size small so that there
> will be no much wasted space due to the fact that each file must use
> integer number of blocks.
>
> With the 32bit FAT that I'm going to use in w98, is block size still a
> factor?

  WIth the 16-bit FAT, block sizes had to go up with larger partitions
because the number of blocks in a partition was limited to 64K (16 bits).
  With the 32-bit FAT, the maximum number of blocks in a partition is 4G (32
bits); we are probably at least a decade away from consumer drives that would
need to increase block size to maintain a single partition.

  I think FAT32 volumes *can* actually have a couple of different block
sizes, and Partition Magic may let you specify which one to use.  But it's
much less of an issue than it was with FAT16, so I don't think I'd bother
worrying about it.


David G

                         PCBUILD's List Owner's:
                      Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
                       Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>