Re: Microsoft FAT 32.
Robin Becker (robin@jessikat.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:48:32 +0100
In article <Pine.LNX.3.93.960802191626.15072A-100000@canuck.gen.nz>, "J.
Sean Connell" <ankh@canuck.gen.nz> writes
>On 31 Jul 1996, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
Agreed! When Gates got it wrong (he couldn't hack unix) he got it wrong
real big. All the shuffling around is a way of hiding the fact that he's
moving towards joining the stuff he can't beat or suppress.
--
Robin Becker