>>Actually a 'gain' in capacity could be gained by blocking to 1024 instead of 512, but then there would be that 'backward compatibility' problem!<<<
I don't think anyone else has as bad a file system as Microsoft at this point. NT is a little better than Win95, but the incompatibility between the two causes even more problems (like, I need an MO drive now for both systems on my little network. Stupid.)
Of course, the disk compression they had for a while solved the inefficiency if not the size limit, but the Stacker ripoff fiasco appears to have hosed that up for a long time to come. I do wish they would fix the compression (I mean, pay the royalties to Stacker or whomever is now necessary and put it back in.)
Folks, tell me: Does Solaris, or HP, or OS2, or mainframe IBM, or anything else you can think of, have these size limitations and huge percentage of wasted disk space caused by the Microsoft FAT system?
This is *entirely* a software problem, fixable with new bios and OS code. Maybe not even new bios, since SCO and NT don't do those huge clusters, on the exact same machines with the same drives and BIOS ROMs. |
