Free MS Update CD

As a matter of interest to me, please may I ask you a favour? Can you say if your 
drives are partitioned at all and whether they are or not, would you be so good as 
to go to each drive in turn and type chkdsk to see the cluster size, i.e. the number 
of bytes per allocation unit.

You can do this in a DOS window.

C:\WINDOWS>chkdsk

C:\WINDOWS>D: , and press Enter

D:\>chkdsk

And so on.

Mine reads "4096 bytes in each allocation unit" on all four drives. This is the same 
as NTFS.

FYI , 4096 bytes is reckoned to be the optimum cluster size.

You can obtain this cluster size on a FAT32 volume using: A:\>format c: /Z:8

My ME computer runs MUCH better since I have partitioned and made this the default 
cluster size. The same is true for 98 Operating Systems.

It is recommended to partition drives with fdisk with a maximum of four partitions 
per physical drive.

It would also be useful to know the size of the drives and their partitions.

NOTES:

Format x: /Z:n

Where x is the drive letter, and n=1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 13 , 32 or 64

1 =512bytes , 2=1024 , 4=2048 , 8=4096 , 16=8192 , 32=16384 , 64=32768.

Many thanks,
Mac

WINDOWS HELP  RAM

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:15 am Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) Mac: Just because 4096 is optimum for NTFS, it has no bearing on the optimum size for FAT32. As well, I have seen only erratic opinions that this is optimum on FAT32, and then only on the system partition. I have seen NO published benchmarks that support these opinions. 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. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:35 am Posted by Carl D (4151 messages posted) Oh, good grief..... not again... [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:40 am Posted by Carl D (4151 messages posted) I thought you'd got enough info about this already? ;-) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 1:14 pm Posted by mistergil (915 messages posted) 1 Drive, 3 partitions C: 13,240,640 kb total 8,192 each unit D: 13,433,232 8,192 E: 13,433,232 8,192 On Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 8:20 am, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >As a matter of interest to me, please may I ask you a favour? Can you say if your >drives are partitioned at all and whether they are or not, would you be so good as >to go to each drive in turn and type chkdsk to see the cluster size, i.e. the number >of bytes per allocation unit. > >You can do this in a DOS window. > >C:\WINDOWS>chkdsk > >C:\WINDOWS>D: , and press Enter > >D:\>chkdsk > >And so on. > >Mine reads "4096 bytes in each allocation unit" on all four drives. This is the same >as NTFS. > >FYI , 4096 bytes is reckoned to be the optimum cluster size. > >You can obtain this cluster size on a FAT32 volume using: A:\>format c: /Z:8 > >My ME computer runs MUCH better since I have partitioned and made this the default >cluster size. The same is true for 98 Operating Systems. > >It is recommended to partition drives with fdisk with a maximum of four partitions >per physical drive. > >It would also be useful to know the size of the drives and their partitions. > >NOTES: > >Format x: /Z:n > >Where x is the drive letter, and n=1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 13 , 32 or 64 > >1 =512bytes , 2=1024 , 4=2048 , 8=4096 , 16=8192 , 32=16384 , 64=32768. > >Many thanks, > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 1:15 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD "Just because 4096 is optimum for NTFS, it has no bearing on the optimum size for FAT32." >>> Byte for byte optimum is optimum. That is just pure logic. ME/9x prefers a small partition to run on, 2·5 to 4Gb is often enough. The default for drives/partitions is 4096 bytes anyway. Where the problem may arise is when you have a single 60Gb drive C: then the cluster size is nowhere near the optimum and the system does not run as well." As well, I have seen only erratic opinions that this is optimum on FAT32, and then only on the system partition. I have seen NO published benchmarks that support these opinions. >>> I cannot say that I have either, but then NTFS took off and everyone was asked to "upgrade", at great expense. Many companies still using '98se and compatible business software don't want to waste money on this, when all of their systems are running perfectly. 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. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 1:35 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Thank you Gil. By accident, I thought, I had a 13·2Gb drive which turned out at 4096 bytes. What happened is that it was about 6Gb when originally formatted. As I needed more space on that particular drive I used a Partition Resizer (Zeleps) to increase the size to 13·2Gb and found that the cluster size remained at 4096 bytes. After reading about NTFS and problems of stability with ME on large volumes. I decided to format the 30·0Gb drive F to 4096 clusters as well, and I have to say that I have less problem now with renaming folders and so on. Your three drives all have 8192 byte clusters, simply by virtue of the fact that they are over 8·0Gb. How do you think that affects performance/drive space? Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 1:43 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD What exactly is your problem Carl? Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 5:29 pm Posted by mistergil (915 messages posted) I retired a Compaq that finally gave out and am running this 2g celeron w/40 g maxtor and ONLY 128 of DDRAM. It's smooth and as fast as my 1g Duron with 384. I upped the sp's to 12 and have had no problems. Initially ran 98 SE on it , wiped it and then ME. ME ran better, even with the low ram. Three equal splits on the format for the partitions, system, storage and backup. Don't know what to compare the cluster size to in order to evaluate the flow of operation. On Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 1:35 pm, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >Thank you Gil. By accident, I thought, I had a 13·2Gb drive which turned out at 4096 >bytes. What happened is that it was about 6Gb when originally formatted. As I needed >more space on that particular drive I used a Partition Resizer (Zeleps) to increase >the size to 13·2Gb and found that the cluster size remained at 4096 bytes. > >After reading about NTFS and problems of stability with ME on large volumes. I decided >to format the 30·0Gb drive F to 4096 clusters as well, and I have to say that I have >less problem now with renaming folders and so on. > >Your three drives all have 8192 byte clusters, simply by virtue of the fact that >they are over 8·0Gb. How do you think that affects performance/drive space? > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 7:39 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) 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. 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. >>>Totally false. I run the standard scandisk and msdefrag on all four drives with no problem. Then you are extremely lucky. Many people who do not follow the guidelines for clustersize vs partition size get out of memory errors. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q229154 [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:40 pm Posted by Steve (19681 messages posted) 2 hard drives, OS on 45 gig drive slave drive 180 gig, both drives 32,768 . On Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 8:20 am, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >As a matter of interest to me, please may I ask you a favour? Can you say if your >drives are partitioned at all and whether they are or not, would you be so good as >to go to each drive in turn and type chkdsk to see the cluster size, i.e. the number >of bytes per allocation unit. > >You can do this in a DOS window. > >C:\WINDOWS>chkdsk > >C:\WINDOWS>D: , and press Enter > >D:\>chkdsk > >And so on. > >Mine reads "4096 bytes in each allocation unit" on all four drives. This is the same >as NTFS. > >FYI , 4096 bytes is reckoned to be the optimum cluster size. > >You can obtain this cluster size on a FAT32 volume using: A:\>format c: /Z:8 > >My ME computer runs MUCH better since I have partitioned and made this the default >cluster size. The same is true for 98 Operating Systems. > >It is recommended to partition drives with fdisk with a maximum of four partitions >per physical drive. > >It would also be useful to know the size of the drives and their partitions. > >NOTES: > >Format x: /Z:n > >Where x is the drive letter, and n=1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 13 , 32 or 64 > >1 =512bytes , 2=1024 , 4=2048 , 8=4096 , 16=8192 , 32=16384 , 64=32768. > >Many thanks, > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 10:25 pm 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 [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 10:39 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Hello Gil, then this article may interest you. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q229154 Also my reply to WhitPhil. (Who last told me that he is also using '98, btw.) Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 10:42 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Hello Steve, then this article might be of interest to you. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q229154 Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 5:41 am Posted by Steve (19681 messages posted) Thanks for the info. I have not had any problems with Defrag. I just use whatever cluster size Windows uses as default. On Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 10:42 pm, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >Hello Steve, then this article might be of interest to you. > >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q229154 > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP   >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 8:38 am Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) "You would think that Microsoft would make ... this ... knowledge ... more ... publicly known." What knowledge? The cluster sizes that should be used (for the majority of users) are the ones that are defaults when you format an emtpy partition. "Then people could use: Format x: /Z:16 , and possibly get a better overall result when using FAT32." ???? 16K? I thought you were advocating 4K for everything? "Nor am I attemptig to correlate but just compare" But, it's like comparing apples and peanuts, with no useful result. "Probably a function of RAM and processor" I have seen posts from people with 512K boxes that were getting this error. Once they corrected the cluster size, all was well again. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 10:58 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD You are probably using a PIII (or equivalent) processor and more RAM than older '98s so you won't have the problem. Both '98 and ME do seem to run better on 8192 byte clusters, or if you really need the space 4096 byte clusters. A single large drive is not very efficient and not too stable either, and I have gained both by partitioning so as to have a 4·0 Gb C: drive and formatting to the size I think is best vis a vis performance, whilst the other three, storage, drives are formatted vis a vis storage space. After all you can dual boot '98 & ME with 2000 & XP and they will format to 4096 byte clusters anyway. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 11:05 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD No Phil, A:\>format c: /Z:8 , gives a 4k cluster , and A:\>format c: /Z:16 , gives an 8k cluster. You would have to use: A:\>format c: /Z:32 to get a 16k cluster. This is because it is binary. Remember that you can dual boot '98 and ME with 2000 & XP which would format to 4096 byte clusters anyway, if they were using NTFS. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM On Monday, July 12, 2004 at 8:38 am, WhitPhil wrote: "You would think that Microsoft would make ... this ... knowledge ... more ... publicly known." What knowledge? The cluster sizes that should be used (for the majority of users) are the ones that are defaults when you format an empty partition. >>> No, the information contained in the MSKB Article. So what happens when you use a Partition Resizer that changes the size from under 8 Gb to over 8 Gb? (You get 4096 byte clusters on a 13·2 Gb drive, as I did.) "Then people could use: Format x: /Z:16 , and possibly get a better overall result when using FAT32." ???? 16K? I thought you were advocating 4K for everything? "Nor am I attempting to correlate but just compare." But, it's like comparing apples and peanuts, with no useful result. >>> Take a look at PCQ&A "Probably a function of RAM and processor" I have seen posts from people with 512K boxes that were getting this error. Once they corrected the cluster size, all was well again. >>> Please see dual booting. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 1:27 pm Posted by Steve (19681 messages posted) I have several PC's, the ME box is really used only for light uses, and storage of media files. Since media files are large, cluster size is probably not to important. If a person stored a lot of 1 or 2 K text files, then smaller clusters I would bet are helpful. Dual booting has the problem if one OS gets messed up, it seems you have to wind up reinstalling both. If you have one PC, you really should switch to XP, shoot you could even make 512K clusters then. I think with all the security issues aside, which XP has plenty of, it's added stability would make it right for you. A 1 gig PIII is plenty. My first XP PC almost 3 years old is a 1 gig PIII. with XP Home, and I can't remember it ever crashing. It is hooked up to the Home stereo system and has all my CD's loaded into it. It plays the music randomly for hours on end. On Monday, July 12, 2004 at 10:58 am, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >You are probably using a PIII (or equivalent) processor and more RAM than older '98s >so you won't have the problem. > >Both '98 and ME do seem to run better on 8192 byte clusters, or if you really need >the space 4096 byte clusters. > >A single large drive is not very efficient and not too stable either, and I have >gained both by partitioning so as to have a 4·0 Gb C: drive and formatting to the >size I think is best vis a vis performance, whilst the other three, storage, drives >are formatted vis a vis storage space. > >After all you can dual boot '98 & ME with 2000 & XP and they will format to 4096 >byte clusters anyway. > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 2:36 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) "No Phil, A:\>format c: /Z:8 , gives a 4k cluster , and A:\>format c: /Z:16 , gives an 8k cluster. This is because it is binary." I stand corrected. But it's hardly binary. Its the number of sectors per cluster. "Remember that you can dual boot '98 and ME with 2000 & XP which would format to 4096 byte clusters anyway, if they were using NTFS." I think Win98 and Me will have a real tough time with NTFS. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 3:03 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD This is a 1·0GHz PIII too. It is running real smooth, but needs a BIOS update for compatibility with XP, plus PC133 SDRAM is too slow. XP on 512 byte clusters would be way too slow! Putting all of your music on is what I do, and I mess around with a Wave Editor recovering old scratched vinyl LPs. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 3:08 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Well the entire thing is binary unless it is decimal! 16 divided by 8 = 2 , and two is binary. One 1 and one zero , where 1+1=2 Anyway back to television repairs, and installing radar sets. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 3:20 pm Posted by Steve (19681 messages posted) I don't know where you get the idea that pc 133 ram is to slow for XP. I have seen you post that numerous times, and it's not true. XP does like about 512 MB of ram, but it doesn't need DDR ram. I have PC100 ,and PC 133 sdram on a couple of XP puters and they run great, infact one is a 1gig athlon with 256MB of PC100 ram that I use for experimenting with new software, and general photo editing, web surfing, and it is way more stable then the ME box which has the same CPU with 512MB sdram. You would have way more fun in your quest to make a perfect running computer with XP. I personaly haven't seen anybody need to update bios for XP either. I would bet XP would run great on your computer. On Monday, July 12, 2004 at 3:03 pm, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >This is a 1·0GHz PIII too. It is running real smooth, but needs a BIOS update for >compatibility with XP, plus PC133 SDRAM is too slow. > >XP on 512 byte clusters would be way too slow! > >Putting all of your music on is what I do, and I mess around with a Wave Editor recovering >old scratched vinyl LPs. > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 3:39 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) Binary!!! Lol Love the interpretation!! Not anywhere correct, but luv the interpretation. Unfortunately, you do a lot of that Mac! [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 11:10 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD All computer systems are binary. The electrical signal is either on or off and these are the two conditions. Two = binary, represented by I and O. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Monday, July 12, 2004 at 11:52 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Thank you Steve, All you tell me rather destroys the idea that people need to spend a lot of money on new equipment. This computer is an OEM install. How should people go about getting all of the necessary drivers from their old system to put on their new XP installation? Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 1:23 am Posted by Steve (19681 messages posted) The 3D gaming industry is what drives the move to fast computers. For non gamers, and I'm taking about the 3rd person 3D shooting games mostly, a Computer like yours and mine 1 gig PC is perfect. The only reason the computer manufactures put XP on this new fast hardware, is because that is what is being sold now, not because XP won't run good on PC 100 ram and a 1 gig PIII. The computer hardware industry dosen't stand still. XP has most the drivers built into it, the occasional sound card or scanner can sometimes be a problem, but I have found just a search on Google will most of the time turn up drivers that work. My scanner wouldn't work on XP, but the manufacture of the scanner said it would work with Win 2000 drivers ,if one followed their installation instructions. It wound up working great. I just built a new Box for my Dad to replace his old 400MHZ PC. He just does email ,solitare, and likes voice chating on messenger with a few friends, so since new old computer stock is so inexpensive I built a 1.2 gig athlon with 256 MB of PC 100 ram, a onbord video, and sound , and 8X CDRW rom for a couple hundred US bucks, and installed XP. I have been burning the computer in now for a month to make sure it runs well. The motherboard and most the hardware I'm sure of is a few years old vintage, though it was still new, and XP found drivers for all the hardware during the install. I have decided not to even add another stick of ram, this computer doesn't need the added ram the way this computer is going to be used. So I would think about doing the switch to XP. Bet you would have few problems to overcome during the install. On Monday, July 12, 2004 at 11:52 pm, Mac wrote: >Free MS Update CD >Thank you Steve, > >All you tell me rather destroys the idea that people need to spend a lot of money >on new equipment. > >This computer is an OEM install. How should people go about getting all of the necessary >drivers from their old system to put on their new XP installation? > Mac > >WINDOWS HELP >HREF="http://www.crucial.com">RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 6:22 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Good enough for me. Sounds like I should give it a try. Thank you Steve. :) Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 3:55 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) Duh! Yes! So! This "fact" has nothing to do with your statement about the parameter in the format being "binary". [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 12:20 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Well if 16 gives 8 then 16 ÷ 8 = 2 , and 1 = 0 = binary 2 Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 12:23 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD Sorry Phil, I'll do that again! (+) Well if 16 gives 8 then 16 ÷ 8 = 2 , and 1 + 0 = binary 2 Btw, Do you know how to re-map the NUM-Pad Del key so that I get a · instead of a . ? Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 4:06 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) The syntax is Format /Z:number where number is multiplied by 512 (the size of a sector). So, /Z:8, results in a cluster size of 512*8 or 4096 None of this has ANY relationship to the "binary" formula you are still trying to justify!! [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 4:37 pm Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD "None of this has ANY relationship to the "binary" formula you are still trying to justify!" Binary vs. Decimal Measurements "One of the most confusing problems regarding PC statistics and measurements is the fact that the computing world has two different definitions for most of its measurement terms. :^) Capacity measurements are usually expressed in kilobytes (thousands of bytes), in megabytes (millions of bytes), or gigabytes (billions of bytes). Due to a mathematical coincidence, however, there are two different meanings for each of these measures. Computers are digital and store data using binary numbers, or powers of two, while humans normally use decimal numbers, expressed as powers of ten. As it turns out, two to the tenth power, 2^10, is 1,024, which is very close in value to 1,000 (10^3). Similarly, 2^20 is 1,048,576, which is approximately 1,000,000 (10^6), and 2^30 is 1,073,741,824, close to 1,000,000,000 (10^9). When computers and binary numbers first began to be used regularly, computer scientists noticed this similarity, and for convenience, "hijacked" the abbreviations normally used for decimal numbers and began applying them to binary numbers. Thus, 2^10 was given the prefix "kilo", 2^20 was called "mega", and 2^30 "giga". This shorthand worked fairly well when used only by technicians who worked regularly with computers; they knew what they were talking about, and nobody else really cared. Over the years however, computers have become mainstream, and the dual notation has led to quite a bit of confusion and inconsistency. In many areas of the PC, only binary measures are used. For example, "64 MB of system RAM" always means 64 times 1,048,576 bytes of RAM, never 64,000,000. In other areas, only decimal measures are found--a "28.8K modem" works at a maximum speed of 28,800 bits per second, not 29,491. Storage devices however are where the real confusion comes in. Some companies and software packages use binary megabytes and gigabytes, and some use decimal megabytes and gigabytes. What's worse is that the percentage discrepancy between the decimal and binary measures increases as the numbers get larger: there is only a 2.4% difference between a decimal and a binary kilobyte, which isn't that big of a deal. However, this increases to around a 5% difference for megabytes, and around 7.5% for gigabytes, which is actually fairly significant. This is why with today's larger hard disks, more people are starting to notice the difference between the two measures. Hard disk capacities are always stated in decimal gigabytes, while most software uses binary. So, someone will buy a "30 GB hard disk", partition and format it, and then be told by Windows that the disk is "27.94 gigabytes" and wonder "where the other 2 gigabytes went". Well, the disk is 27.94 gigabytes--27.94 binary gigabytes. The 2 gigabytes didn't go anywhere. Another thing to be careful of is converting between binary gigabytes and binary megabytes. Decimal gigabytes and megabytes differ by a factor of 1,000 but of course the binary measures differ by 1,024. So this same 30 GB hard disk is 30,000 MB in decimal terms. But its 27.94 binary gigabytes are equal to 28,610 binary megabytes (27.94 times 1,024). One final "gotcha" in this area is related to arithmetic done between units that have different definitions of "mega" or "giga". For example: most people would say that the PCI bus has a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 133.3 Mbytes/second, because it is 4 bytes wide and runs at 33.3 MHz. The problem here is that the "M" in "MHz" is 1,000,000; but the "M" in "Mbytes/second" is 1,048,576. So the bandwidth of the PCI bus is more properly stated as 127.2 Mbytes/second (4 times 33,333,333 divided by 1,048,576). There's potential good news regarding this whole binary/decimal conundrum. The IEEE has proposed a new naming convention for the binary numbers, to hopefully eliminate some of the confusion. Under this proposal, for binary numbers the third and fourth letters in the prefix are changed to "bi", so "mega" becomes "mebi" for example. Thus, one megabyte would be 10^6 bytes, but one mebibyte would be 2^20 bytes. The abbreviation would become "1 MiB" instead of "1 MB". "Mebibyte" sounds goofy, but hey, I'm sure "byte" did too, 30 years ago." Good site this and well worth taking the time to read up on. Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 5:32 pm Posted by WhitPhil (221 messages posted) One day, instead of continuing on a never ending tangent, you will just stop and say that you were wrong. Obviously, today is NOT that day. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Cluster size survey, check your computer now! Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 1:00 am Posted by Cam (4178 messages posted) Free MS Update CD I don't know of such a day, Phil, so don't hold your breath! ;-) Mac WINDOWS HELP  RAM [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum