🚀 go-pugleaf

My town has bad power, it goes out quite a bit, never once has
WinNT or now Win2K lost one cluster of data during a power loss.
I could be compiling a file at the time and I'd still come up fine
once power resumed. Defrag your disk.

On 7 Apr 2000 08:05:26 GMT, root@[127.0.0.1] (Ricket) wrote:

>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
>

- Mark A. Odell (remove thisisnotvalid. to reply via email)