Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wily who wrote (2440)	3/20/1999 1:51:00 PM
From: RJL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110648

Hi Wily, Quite interesting. I have the seen 'anomaly' on the 98 box that I'm currently using. Sounds familiar, and the only possible explanation that I can come up with is that one of the readings is not taking into account the swap/paging file size. The 'missing' amount would make sense if that was the case. Just for test purposes, try opening up a few applications and see what the difference is. I'll play with it on Monday when I get a chance just for the heck of it. Richard

To: wily who wrote (2440)	3/21/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 110648

File space reported: I've just read some stuff on this matter. It seems like one place is reporting how much data you have in files, while the other is reporting how much disk space your files are consuming. If you had a file with just one byte used, it would be reported as one byte in one place, but this one byte would consume the minimum chunk of disk space a file could occupy. A related topic: FAT32. It seems that there are only so many entries for file tables. Sorta like a law that says pizza could only be sliced into eight pieces. Get a giant party-size pizza and each slice would feed a crowd. Get a little one and each piece is an OK size to manage. When FAT16 was born, disks had only 10 meg or so, and each file took up about 4k. With this scheme on a 10 Gig drive the minimum size could become a meg. (Don't check the math, I'm trying to illustrate a point here!) I think this explains why people say FAT32 will make your disk hold more -- it just fills in the wasted parts. Anyway, thanks for posing the interesting question. I'm sure it's a puzzle to many. Have a good weekend, PW.