|
|
|
Why FAT16?!?!?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by DNA
(551 messages posted)
Hi gewg_, I certainly can't find fault with your preferred method of storing bookmarks
as individual files, BUT...
As far as I understand the FAT system, a FAT16 partition sized from 512 to 1023 MB
would have 16 KB clusters, and a FAT16 partition from 1024 to 2047 MB would have
32 KB clusters, meaning minimum disk space allocated per file of 16 KB and
32 KB respectively (even for a '100-byte' file), versus...
A FAT32 partition from 512 MB to 8 GB would have a cluster size of 4 KB, thus a minimum
disk space of 4 KB allocated per file.
On a 2 GB partition (ex: the flash drive), it must be noted that the size of the
FAT (file allocation table) will be 128 KB in FAT16 and 2 MB in FAT32, so that when
empty, the drive has 1920 KB more usable space.
But if one is storing a large number of <4-KB files, and
if each <4-KB file takes up 4 KB in FAT32 and 32 KB in FAT16, it would take only
69 <4-KB files to use up the 'extra' 1920 KB in disk space in the FAT16 partition
(69, times the 28 KB difference = 1932 KB).
If you're "addicted" to bookmarks, you probably have more than 69 individual bookmarks.
I have more than that, and I wouldn't say I was "addicted"....So I would think that
FAT32 would be more efficient for your 'individual bookmark' use, all said and done...
If I'm missing another possible advantage of FAT16 for a USB drive (besides being
able to run DOS from it, if the BIOS allowed booting from a USB drive), please follow
up and explain... Thanks, DNA
----------------------------------------------------------
Athlon 1.1 - 768 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Home
Athlon 3000+ 64 - 1024 MB RAM = 98SE (@768 MB RAM) & XP Pro
IBM ThinkPad PIII 900 - 384 MB RAM = 98SE & XP Pro SP2
Windows 2000 Server in the basement
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | | | |  | Why FAT16?!?!? (DNA: Wed, May 23, 2007, 4:14 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
