SPONSORED LINKS
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:48:06 -0700, Randal Whittle wrote: >At 04:46 PM 10/2/97 -0600, Dean Cashen wrote: >>Randal Whittle wrote: >>> >>> The key feature here, as far as Partition Magic goes, is that it >lets you >>> effortlessly "convert" (assuming you have the OS support for it) from FAT16 >>> to FAT32 and back. >> >>Not only that, but it allows you to split a disk into partitions >>without data loss. This is particularly helpful on FAT16 systems >>because you can split a drive into smaller partitions and gain >>efficiency (space) by making each partition small enough so the >>cluster size can be reduced (example: A drive that's 1 to 2GB in size > > Err...I thought that goes without saying. That's the main point of >Partition Magic to begin with! > > The rest of this stuff is just icing on the cake. > >>> I've had really mixed reaction to this FAT32 stuff. At first, I thought >>> it was great, but I really notice the performance hit it creates. Every >>> machine I've put it on, I have also ended up changing it back to FAT16 >>> sooner or later. I figure the disk space is cheap, so I haven't the need >>> to get chintzy with it. >> >>While I've read, and understand that there could be a performance >>ding, I haven't noticed it on the Thinkpad (I use standard PC >>apps, Word and such, along with graphics editors and some >>compilers). I'll bet you're doing more disk-intensive work, is >>that so? > > Hell, just loading up Windows 95 is disk-intensive work! ;-) You should see Warp 4 with 12MB of RAM. :=> > > The machines I've used Fat32 on (and gone back to Fat16 eventually) were >all desktops. I never put Fat 32 on my TP560. In general, laptops are a >fair bit slower--especially in the HD area--than desktops. So it stands to >reason you may not even notice the performance hit on a latptop. > Actually, the drive in this 701 is supposedly spinning at *only* <5000 RPMs. I think it was like 4900 or 4800. And even worse, the 355/360/755 drives were 3600RPMs. Paul