Can we say "security through obscurity", boys and girls?
Actually, the FAT 32 as described upthread seems perfectly reasonable
to me. It's the obvious extension of FAT to 32-bit cluster numbers,
which should have happened five years ago. Okay, it still has the
fundamental flaws of FAT, but by making just this change it's possible
to avoid requiring really extensive changes to FAT-reading programs,
including DOS itself.
-zefram