zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous User 5/20/2005 7:32:26 PM

ASA

Anonymous User 2/7/2005 1:24:01 AM

On the paper edition of this article?

Anonymous User 2/2/2005 5:59:58 AM

Great article but where's this sidebar you've been frequently mentioning?

Anonymous User 1/8/2005 8:32:09 AM

It is a great articel, but i dindent find what i was looking for

but thnaks for the help

Patrick11/27/2003 3:21:01 AM

It works, took me a while, but it works fine

Keith Slater 3/16/2001 12:38:47 PM

Sean Daily’s very informative October article, “NTFS vs. FAT,” says that one of the advantages of NTFS over FAT is the size of the clusters on the disk. In the article, Tables 1 and 2 illustrate this point. The problem is that Table 1 lists the cluster sizes in a way I don’t understand. As you progress down the table, they read 4KB, 2KB, 4KB, 8KB, 16KB, 32KB. The cluster size cannot be larger, then smaller, then larger again. The values should be 2KB, 4KB, 8KB, 16KB, 32KB, and 64KB.

--Jay Benson,



Jay, thank you for pointing out an area that needs clarification. The reason why the first value is 4KB is that up to 16MB, the value is for a 12-bit FAT; for more than 16MB, the FAT is 16-bit. The source for this information is NT 3.51 MS Knowledge Base article Q140365.

--Sean Daily

Jay Benson 8/12/1999 11:45:37 AM