🚀 go-pugleaf

tetsuo@interzone.apana.org.au (TETSUO) wrote:

>>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!

Of the environments you mentioned the first 5 either include or can use
full HPFS support, Linux can read HPFS partitions, and I don't know (or
care) about Macs.

>I really cannot see a single argument that outwieghs the FAT vs HPFS
>in favour of HPFS. Really?

How about the length of the filename? Kind of handy on occasion.

>C'mon, all the advantages of HPFS don't add up to anything when compared
>to the multi-platform compatibility you get with FAT.

See above.

>Even on a speed scale you wont find any noticable difference.

Probably not, but the longer filenames and improved resistance to
fragmentation and data loss are significant improvements over FAT.

>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.

You must've installed every piece of software on the two CDs then. I'm
quite happy with the same processor and half the RAM (although boot time
leaves a bit to be desired).

--
Adam Fitzpatrick

"Always burn your bridges behind you. You never know
who might be trying to follow."        -Enabran Tain