🚀 go-pugleaf

-> But the end result is - I installed the system on a 800mb FAT drive - I'm
-> now keen to explore HPFS as I've been told on a system with a fair bit of
-> RAM (i.e. >16mb) it will give a further boost to performance as well as
-> getting away from FAT.

You're nuts!

I've explored HPFS. IT doesn't give "performance boosts" or whatever, it's only
advantage is that it has a better way of organising files so they dont get
fragmented, and it puts the allocation table in the Middle of the disk instead
of the centre. FAT under OS/2 is "SUPER-FAT" and has alot of improvements over
the Default FAT under DOS which give it better performance.

FAT is usable under OS/2, DOS, Win, Win95, WinNT, Linux and even Macs can
read/write to it with the driver installed! I really cannot see a single
argument that outwieghs the FAT vs HPFS in favour of HPFS. Really? C'mon, all
the advantages of HPFS don't add up to anything when compared to the
multi-platform compatibility you get with FAT. Even on a speed scale you wont
find any noticable difference.

Under FAT, I can boot to Win95 or OS2. I didnt install "Just ADD", no need. The
system runs smooth. I agree OS/2 is really made for pentiums. I had a 486-66
with 32 megs of RAM and Warp still was unbearable. When i got a pentium I
saw Warp in a whole new light. Still, I mainly use Win95 for stuff like
Photoshop, Corel, Quark Xpress etc. If I could run Win95 apps from OS2 i
probably would, though Win95 has been very stable for me recently. I found that
the only things that bugger up Win95's stability is when you install other
programs, such as Norton (SYMANTEC) apps.

----------------------- tetsuo@interzone.apana.org.au -----------------------
  Sysop: INTERZONE BBS - Australia's largest Jap Anime/Manga archive online
          For BBS info send email to: info@interzone.apana.org.au
       FREE ACCESS, FREE EMAIL ACCOUNT FIRST CALL, NO SHAREWARE CD ROMS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------