re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now!
Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 10:25 pm
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Cam
(4178 messages posted)
Free MS Update CD
Byte for byte optimum is optimum. That is just pure logic.
"So, you are talking about using the space to the optimum, regardless of whether
the PC itself performs optimally."
>>>I see that you are making a statement and an assumption, rather than asking a
question.
>>> However the answer is no, because the article implies that a PC with a drive
smaller than 8Gb ... will ... perform optimally anyway, and that with the 4096 Cluster
size.
However according to the Microsoft Knowledge Base article you include in your post,
8k or 8192 byte clusters are preferable.
You would think that Microsoft would make ... this ... knowledge ... more ... publicly
known.
Then people could use: Format x: /Z:16 , and possibly get a better overall result
when using FAT32.
"If it is meant to cover the latter also, you can not use any stats from NTFS and
presume they are valid for FAT32. They are 2 completely unique systems. It's akin
to using the same VM layout for XP as for Win9x. You can't. There is no correlation."
"And, if the size of the partition is larger than 8GB, that you change to 4K clusters,
the native Windows Scandisk and Defrag programs will no longer execute."
>>>Totally false. I run the standard scandisk and msdefrag on all four drives with
no problem.
Nor am I attemptig to correlate but just compare.
"Then you are extremely lucky. Many people who do not follow the guidelines for clustersize
vs partition size get out of memory errors."
>>> Probably a function of RAM and processor. Running a '98 defrag with only 64Mb
of RAM takes an age, and most older systems are very short on RAM as Microsoft has
an unfortunate habit of specifying a minimum instead of specifying an optimum. ME
defrag and the available quantity of RAM ... is ... therefore an improvement over
many '98 systems.
Whilst 4096 is not the minimum then the optimum ... may well be better. Again they
should make this more publicly known.
At the next opportunity I'll try 8k clusters and see if that improves things noticeably.
Thanks for replying, and especially for this article, as most people don't have the
time to delve into the finer workings of computers, generally having better things
to do than play Big Brother "intellectual" games, of the ... we know something you
don't know variety.
Secrecy and openness ... not ... being the same. But then Good Teaching is very ...
Christian.
The ME computer which I am using is only four years old. I had 10 years use from
Windows 3.1, so I have no intention of buying another computer for at least six years.
Certainly not just to make anyone ever wealthier whilst many are still living in
poverty and deprivation.
Mac
WINDOWS HELP RAM
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | | |  | re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! (Cam: Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 10:25 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum
|
|
