🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <4b6vlv$eav@salomon.zfe.siemens.de> - gerhard.islinger@p66.mch2.siem
ens.scn.dbp.de (Gerhard Islinger) writes:
> 
> yes, it's possible that way... but consider working with four 1GB
> partitions for the smaller cluster size.

This isn't really on the original topic, but I'd have to take issue with the 
concept of a 1GB FAT partition using a "small" cluster size.  (Yes, I know 
the post says "smaller," and that's technically correct when compared to what 
a 4GB partition would use, but still....)  1GB is right on the boundary 
between 16K and 32K for the cluster size, meaning that 8K or 16K will 
typically be wasted per file.  Given that a 1GB partition is likely to have A 
LOT of files, this adds up very quickly.  Owners of 1GB hard drives typically 
report ~300MB being lost to slack space because of this.

IMHO, FAT partitions should be kept to 255MB or less, or ideally 127MB or 
less in most cases.  If this is inconvenient, consider changing OSes.  OS/2, 
Windows NT, and most Unixes all offer filesystems that use 0.5K or 1K cluster 
sizes no matter what the partition size, and this can save A LOT of disk 
space.  OS/2 is probably the easiest move for most Windows 3.11 or Windows 95 
users or would-be users, with Windows NT also worth considering for those 
with a bit more RAM.  Unix clones are nice if you're not already heavily 
invested in DOS/Windows software and don't need specific DOS/Windows titles 
for which no Unix equivalents exist.  Saying much more is beyond the scope of 
a short message, but I've written a FAQ entitled "Should I Buy OS/2 Warp" 
that goes into that specific question.  If you want a copy, e-mail me.

					--Rod Smith
					  RSMITH@PSYCH.COLORADO.EDU