Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC )

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (11478)	11/13/2000 3:04:02 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (1) of 14778

FAT 32 ... File Allocation Tables point to the data on your disk. Early PCs had 16-bit tables, limiting the number of entries to what can be expressed with this size of number. As disks grew in size, it became necessary to have each table entry point to larger and larger areas of storage, which wasted considerable disk space when small files were stored. One solution was 32-bit File Allocation Tables. With thousands more entries possible, each could be considerably smaller, wasting much less disk space. The down side, is the two systems are not compatible. Windows supplies the software to move from 16 to 32 bit FAT, but not the reverse. I don't know why your system had the patience to wait two years before asking you to change. Maybe it's shy and just wanted to know you better before going down a path that cannot be reversed. Or maybe it took this long for your system to create enough small files that some pre-set wasted space threshold was triggered. As far as I know, your file system and resources are not connected in any meaningful way. Cheers, PW.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next