Mail Archives: cygwin/1999/06/26/13:43:21
> -----Original Message-----
> From: N8TM AT aol DOT com [mailto:N8TM AT aol DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 10:07 PM
> To: DMcCunney AT roper DOT com; cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> Subject: Re: FW: reported vs actual file sizes
>
> In a message dated 6/25/99 10:43:38 AM PST,
> DMcCunney AT roper DOT com writes:
>
> > (NT through 4.0 does not grok Fat32. NT 5.0
> > is supposed to be able to.) These can use smaller
> > clusters for more efficient storage.
>
> W2K does fine at reading and writing FAT32 partitions, but
> not at running on them. IMHO it wouldn't hurt to mention
That's good to know. I haven't heard about any timetable
for our shop to upgrade to W2K -- we're still integrating an
acquisition that is Novell based, so I don't expect it
to be soon.
What do you mean when you say W2K isn't good at running
on FAT32 partitions?
> that cygwin runs better on NTFS partitions and it's not too
> good to install W2K on FAT in the hope of W9X or
> older NT versions being able to deal with it.
My NT server is all NTFS, but that isn't normaly accessed
directly - it performs file and print sharing functions and
it the gateway to my section of the WAN. My desktop is
currently Win95, but my plan is to migrate to NT Workstation.
I'll break out a seperate partition for NT, format it NTFS and
install it there, but I have a _lot_ of stuff on the FAT32
portion I would prefer to copy over as time permits, rather than
doing a backup, wiping the drive, reformatting and installing NT,
and restoring from backup.
Besides, I'd prefer to have dual boot capability. One of my
jobs is tech support, and debugging a user problem when I'm on
NT and they're on 95 isn't something I look forward to.
_______________
Dennis McCunney
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -