🚀 go-pugleaf

hoshi-ryu@home.com (Jeremy Balsley) wrote in
<201H4.31428$Ig.143743@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com>: 


>Keep in mind:  Windows 95 can't handle AGP (unless it's a patched 'B'
>version),
>ACPI, multimonitor, USB (again, unless it's a patched 'B' version), or
>any of the
>specific 'NT' goodies that 2000 carries.

I happen to have this B patched version. So I do get AGP and USB. I just don't 
have any USB devices yet.

>Windows 2000, on the other hand, can handle SMP (multiple processors on
>one motherboard),

OK.

> NTFS (a 'new' filesystem that allows for native Long
>File Name support,

NTFS has the bad habit of shuffling clusters around, and once your MTF is 
fragmented in even a few pieces, performance takes a bad hit.
Also the few benchmarks I wrote in GNU C under Win95 and WinNT showed that 
FAT32 read access is at least 20% faster than NTFS.


>efficient use of space
>(fragmentation is reduced, and wasted space is minimized, with 512byte
>clusters),

FAT32 and some tweaking allows you to adjust the cluster size depending on the 
number of files on a volume and the general file size distribution.

NTFS *does* fragment. And performance can get pretty ugly.

>and some protection built in for filesystem errors), and can take
>advantage of all

In almost 6 years of pro use of NT, I had more unrecoverable file corruptions 
under NT than under Win95. Let's say here your mileage may vary.

Thank you very much for your insight.

Ricket