> Could someone clue me in. The name at least sounds like marketing hype.
> There have been 32 bit fats since about 32Mb hardrives where 16 bit
> fats were too small. Is microsoft _really_ producing another file
> system, or did they just decide to hype something, with a new name,
> _again!_ ??????????
>
> Eric
The original FAT actually used *12*-bit cluster numbers, packing two
entries into three bytes. When hard drives actually started to get
practical (around DOS 2.0 or so), they bumped it up to 16 bits (one entry
in two bytes). When they relaxed the 32MB limit, all they did was permit
clusters to be bigger, they did not increase the number of bits used to
hold a cluster.
*betrays his origins as a DOS user*
(well, hell, I was a DOSite for some 8 years before I first discovered
UNIX, and I've only been a serious Linux dude since early March; and now,
when I go to use DOS on my boyfriend's machine for whatever reason, I
can't remember how to do things... :)
Personally, I think Microsoft is flogging a dead horse by adding features
into an archaic filesystem that should've been there from the beginning.
--
J. Sean Connell Systems Software Architect, ICONZ
ankh@canuck.gen.nz "Oh life is a glorious cycle of song,
ankh@iconz.co.nz a medley of extemporanea,
#include <stddisc.h> And love is a thing that can never go wrong...
And I'm Queen Marie of Romania."
I *hate* Sun Type 4 kbs! --Dorothy Parker