Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what are the changes? I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network server settings to optimize the HDD.
Guest philo Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what > are the changes? > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and formatted. The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would be to convert Fat16 to Fat32
Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem That I understand. What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. If NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to other NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of HPFS? "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and > what > > are the changes? > > > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network > > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > > > > > > > > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 > > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and > formatted. > > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would be to > convert Fat16 to Fat32 > >
Guest philo Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > That I understand. > What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. If > NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to other > NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of HPFS? OS/2 was the predicessor to NT OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed on a HPFS partition) The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending on which version of NT you go back to they can also use either fat32 or Fat16 The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that can create and install to a 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for win95A which will work only with fat16) NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097 > news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three > > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and > > what > > > are the changes? > > > > > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by > Jim > > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about > network > > > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 > > > > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and > > formatted. > > > > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would be > to > > convert Fat16 to Fat32 > > > > > >
Guest glee Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem It doesn't change the file system at all. It changes the PathCache and NameCache settings in the Registry. This just affects the number of paths and filenames that are cached. Network server cached more than Desktop, and Desktop more than Mobile. Back when 8 or 16 MB of RAM was the norm, there was a common online tip for Win95 at that time to use the Network Server setting. Actually, the logic was incorrect in even that suggestion. Nowadays with the larger amounts if RAM installed, you would not see a difference at either the Desktop or Server setting. I think it was Raymond Chen who stated once that the difference in the amount of RAM used at the different settings versus the performance change, would pretty much cancel each other out, and there would be no perceivable difference at either Desktop or Network Server. Definition of the "Typical Role of This Machine" Setting http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q140679/ Leave it at Desktop. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what > are the changes? > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > >
Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem I'm sorry philo, the more I read the puncher I get. I might need to start fresh again tomorrow. I just do not know why MS does not tell anyone much about these system properties advanced settings. My experience was that the machine performed better on the Eshelman recommendation...but I hate not knowing exactly what is happening there! This is already a fat 32 and to change this advanced setting required only a reboot. This could be a combination of kernel functions that enhance a soho of wfw with ics not big enough to need NT. Also as client for MS networks you can log on to an NT server with a domain and username/password. "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > That I understand. > > What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. > If > > NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to > other > > NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of > HPFS? > > > OS/2 was the predicessor to NT > > OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition > > but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS > (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed > on a HPFS partition) > > The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending > on which version of NT you go back to > > they can also use either fat32 or Fat16 > > > The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that can > create and install to a > 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity > > > Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows > would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for win95A > which will work only with fat16) > > NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097 > > > > > > news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > > > > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > > > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has > three > > > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > > > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem > and > > > what > > > > are the changes? > > > > > > > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by > > Jim > > > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about > > network > > > > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 > > > > > > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and > > > formatted. > > > > > > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would > be > > to > > > convert Fat16 to Fat32 > > > > > > > > > > > >
Guest Fan924 Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem Quoted from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140679 ___________________________________________________ You can set the Typical Role Of This Machine setting to the following settings: * Desktop Computer * Mobile Or Docking System * Network Server The setting you use controls the size of various internal data structures used by the 32-bit file access driver (VFAT) that are used to optimize disk space. When you use the Desktop Computer setting, VFAT allocates memory to record the 32 most recently accessed folders and the 677 most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 10K of memory. When you use the Mobile Or Docking System setting, VFAT allocates memory to record the 16 most recently accessed folders and the 337 most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 5K of memory. When you use the Network Server setting, VFAT allocates memory to record the 64 most recently accessed folders and the 2729 most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 40K of memory. ___________________________________________________
Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem Thanks for clarifying that moot point. I bumped up my RAM early on this machine to 256 Mbytes. It did seem like better performance though. I really will know now that I switched back to the desktop setting. It was lacking explanation in the Help so I have a desire to experiment. I also have a desire for an OS that is straight forward, simple and secure at the kernel layer .. "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:OECUmv2nIHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > It doesn't change the file system at all. It changes the PathCache and NameCache > settings in the Registry. This just affects the number of paths and filenames that > are cached. Network server cached more than Desktop, and Desktop more than Mobile. > Back when 8 or 16 MB of RAM was the norm, there was a common online tip for Win95 at > that time to use the Network Server setting. Actually, the logic was incorrect in > even that suggestion. Nowadays with the larger amounts if RAM installed, you would > not see a difference at either the Desktop or Server setting. > > I think it was Raymond Chen who stated once that the difference in the amount of RAM > used at the different settings versus the performance change, would pretty much > cancel each other out, and there would be no perceivable difference at either > Desktop or Network Server. > > Definition of the "Typical Role of This Machine" Setting > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q140679/ > > Leave it at Desktop. > > -- > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ > http://dts-l.net/ > http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm > > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop, > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what > > are the changes? > > > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network > > server settings to optimize the HDD. > > > > > > >
Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem Thanks, this is liberating us of an old urban myth. "Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:daa6540b-4d6f-4398-aa51-8014da5cb183@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Quoted from > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140679 > ___________________________________________________ > > You can set the Typical Role Of This Machine setting to the following > settings: > * Desktop Computer > * Mobile Or Docking System > * Network Server > The setting you use controls the size of various internal data > structures used by the 32-bit file access driver (VFAT) that are used > to optimize disk space. > > When you use the Desktop Computer setting, VFAT allocates memory to > record the 32 most recently accessed folders and the 677 most recently > accessed files. This consumes approximately 10K of memory. > > When you use the Mobile Or Docking System setting, VFAT allocates > memory to record the 16 most recently accessed folders and the 337 > most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 5K of > memory. > > When you use the Network Server setting, VFAT allocates memory to > record the 64 most recently accessed folders and the 2729 most > recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 40K of memory. > ___________________________________________________ >
Guest Lil' Dave Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem Win95 original/Win95A, FAT16 only. Win95B and C, FAT16 and FAT32. -- Dave "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows > would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for > win95A > which will work only with fat16)
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent you got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance settings to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do with the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> That I understand. >> What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. > If >> NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to > other >> NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of > HPFS? > > > OS/2 was the predicessor to NT > > OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition > > but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS > (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed > on a HPFS partition) > > The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending > on which version of NT you go back to > > they can also use either fat32 or Fat16 > > > The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that > can > create and install to a > 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity > > > Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows > would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for > win95A > which will work only with fat16) > > NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097 > > > > >> news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> > >> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has > three >> > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: >> > > desktop, >> > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem > and >> > what >> > > are the changes? >> > > >> > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems >> > > by >> Jim >> > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about >> network >> > > server settings to optimize the HDD. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 >> > >> > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and >> > formatted. >> > >> > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would > be >> to >> > convert Fat16 to Fat32 >> > >> > >> >> > >
Guest Jim Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon. Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this topic : System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file system>"Typical Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent you > got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance settings > to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do with > the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://www.grystmill.com > > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > > news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> That I understand. > >> What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. > > If > >> NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to > > other > >> NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of > > HPFS? > > > > > > OS/2 was the predicessor to NT > > > > OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition > > > > but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS > > (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed > > on a HPFS partition) > > > > The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending > > on which version of NT you go back to > > > > they can also use either fat32 or Fat16 > > > > > > The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that > > can > > create and install to a > > 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity > > > > > > Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows > > would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for > > win95A > > which will work only with fat16) > > > > NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097 > > > > > > > > > >> news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> > > >> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > >> > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has > > three > >> > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: > >> > > desktop, > >> > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem > > and > >> > what > >> > > are the changes? > >> > > > >> > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems > >> > > by > >> Jim > >> > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about > >> network > >> > > server settings to optimize the HDD. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32 > >> > > >> > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and > >> > formatted. > >> > > >> > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would > > be > >> to > >> > convert Fat16 to Fat32 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
Guest philo Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Re: filesystem "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon. > Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the > other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this topic > : System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file system>"Typical > Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent > you > > got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance > settings > > to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do > with > > the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors. > > > > -- > > Gary S. Terhune > > MS-MVP Shell/User > > http://www.grystmill.com > > Gary: I saw your post just by chance here... I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times... Anyway, the OP had asked *two* questions. One about file systems and one about performance... So I chose to answer the one pertaining to files systems. As you may have noticed, a few other folks have covered the performance issue pretty well. Anyway...my sincere best wishes for the upcomming holiday... I may decide to unplonk you afterwards. Of course I am probably too big of an idiot to figure out how to unplonk you .<G>
Guest PVM Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem Full-Quoter philo wrote: > Gary: > > I saw your post just by chance here... > I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times.. > I may decide to unplonk you afterwards. Gary is definately plonk material. Isin't that right Gary?
Guest philo Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem "PVM" <PVM@Grystmill.com> wrote in message news:4806989D.D6BA263C@Grystmill.com... > Full-Quoter philo wrote: > > > Gary: > > > > I saw your post just by chance here... > > I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times.. > > I may decide to unplonk you afterwards. > > Gary is definately plonk material. > > Isin't that right Gary? I found him a bit emotional... but then Usenet can be a good form of entertainment .
Guest thanatoid Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by > noon. Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the > topic above. On the other hand, this tells you all that > there is genuine confusion in this topic >: System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file >: system>"Typical > Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... > for win98.x <SNIP> I've always had all my /standalone/ computers set for "network servers" because in 95 or 96 (when DID 95A come out?) someone told me, /quote/, "these settings are to be ignored and set for network server for best performance". Obviously, the article quoted explains why (I never /knew/ why but I trusted my "teacher") makes it clear the "load" if you can even call it that on the machine is negligible. And anyone doing ANYTHING half-serious was going to have more than 16MB of RAM on a computer even in 1995. As for the confusion, IMO it's typical of MS. Take something MOST people ARE capable of understanding (this one is as simple as they get IMO), give it a name which has little or nothing to do with the function in question, and confuse the hell out of everyone. As for the REAL "file system", maybe it's just me, but it never even occurred to me that changing that setting would affect whether the computer was FAT16 or 32. That was always the first decision when setting up a machine at the fdisk stage and I always knew once Windows was installed it was /not/ changing. Thanks to small OEM's and their offering 95B and C while A was STILL being sold in stores and with new brand-name systems (incredible), my first 'own' (AOT work) machine was FAT32. Not to stray/bore you further, but having read at least one MVP (!) refer to NTFS as "fiasco" in some post, I am quite happy not to even have the option (I am staying with 9x and if my current machine(s) outlive me - this one is now 10½ yrs old and going strong! - it's Linux time). Do XP and Vista still come with the setting (found in another tab of the same box) for the CD-ROM drive being 1x, 2x, or "4x or higher"? ;-) It would NOT surprise me. -- The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children plays with time. Karel Capek
Guest philo Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9A82DA4F2DF9Cthanexit@66.250.146.158... > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in > news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > > > yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by > > noon. Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the > > topic above. On the other hand, this tells you all that > > there is genuine confusion in this topic > >: System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file > >: system>"Typical > > Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... > > for win98.x > > <SNIP> > > I've always had all my /standalone/ computers set for "network > servers" because in 95 or 96 (when DID 95A come out?) someone > told me, /quote/, "these settings are to be ignored and set for > network server for best performance". > > Obviously, the article quoted explains why (I never /knew/ why > but I trusted my "teacher") makes it clear the "load" if you can > even call it that on the machine is negligible. And anyone doing > ANYTHING half-serious was going to have more than 16MB of RAM on > a computer even in 1995. > > As for the confusion, IMO it's typical of MS. Take something > MOST people ARE capable of understanding (this one is as simple > as they get IMO), give it a name which has little or nothing to > do with the function in question, and confuse the hell out of > everyone. > > As for the REAL "file system", maybe it's just me, but it never > even occurred to me that changing that setting would affect > whether the computer was FAT16 or 32. That was always the first > decision when setting up a machine at the fdisk stage and I > always knew once Windows was installed it was /not/ changing. > Thanks to small OEM's and their offering 95B and C while A was > STILL being sold in stores and with new brand-name systems > (incredible), my first 'own' (AOT work) machine was FAT32. > > Not to stray/bore you further, but having read at least one MVP > (!) refer to NTFS as "fiasco" in some post, I am quite happy not > to even have the option (I am staying with 9x and if my current > machine(s) outlive me - this one is now 10½ yrs old and going > strong! - it's Linux time). > > Do XP and Vista still come with the setting (found in another > tab of the same box) for the CD-ROM drive being 1x, 2x, or "4x > or higher"? ;-) It would NOT surprise me. > > Hey nice seeing . My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been hanging out over here. I don't think XP and Vista have specific settings for cdrom speed... but I do know that Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin" .. I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days! As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the preferable way to go. I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really is more difficult to corrupt than fat. Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos boot floppy
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem The OP NEVER asked about file systems. He asked about a setting, one choice of which is filesystem. The latter has NOTHING to do with the former. I can't kill file you. You're too entertaining now. (Yes, I'm quite bored these days. Back to harassing idiots.) Seriously, Philo, when you're so wrong, so often, or so prone to adding your worthless two cents, which only confuses the entire thread, someone has to call you on it. I'm it. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:OHooWgBoIHA.4292@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon. >> Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the >> other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this > topic >> : System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file >> system>"Typical >> Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >> news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> > Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real >> > talent >> you >> > got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance >> settings >> > to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do >> with >> > the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors. >> > >> > -- >> > Gary S. Terhune >> > MS-MVP Shell/User >> > http://www.grystmill.com >> > > > > Gary: > > I saw your post just by chance here... > I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times... > > > Anyway, the OP had asked *two* questions. > One about file systems and one about performance... > So I chose to answer the one pertaining to files systems. > As you may have noticed, a few other folks have covered the performance > issue pretty well. > > Anyway...my sincere best wishes for the upcomming holiday... > I may decide to unplonk you afterwards. > > Of course I am probably too big of an idiot to figure out > how to unplonk you .<G> > > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Re: filesystem Who, me? Sure, why not. If you don't have a QUESTION about the use of Windows 98 that I can answer, I couldn't care less what you do or where you go. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "PVM" <PVM@Grystmill.com> wrote in message news:4806989D.D6BA263C@Grystmill.com... > Full-Quoter philo wrote: > >> Gary: >> >> I saw your post just by chance here... >> I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times.. >> I may decide to unplonk you afterwards. > > Gary is definately plonk material. > > Isin't that right Gary?
Guest thanatoid Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 Re: filesystem "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: <SNIP> > Hey nice seeing . Likewise. > My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been > hanging out over here. You don't get 24hour.hd on this one? > I don't think XP and Vista have > specific settings for cdrom speed... Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something like that). Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to go downtown.) > but I do know that > Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin" > . > I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days! I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but of course that can't be verified. > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the > preferable way to go. > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really > is more difficult to corrupt than fat. That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has never happened to me. > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos > boot floppy I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard, sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using a "superior' fs. -- The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children plays with time. Karel Capek
Guest philo Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 Re: filesystem "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9A83F010B66C0thanexit@66.250.146.158... > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in > news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > > <SNIP> > > > Hey nice seeing . > > Likewise. > > > My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been > > hanging out over here. > > You don't get 24hour.hd on this one? My regular newsserver is now back on line... and I have already started one of my odd-ball posts already > > > I don't think XP and Vista have > > specific settings for cdrom speed... > > Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have > changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar > thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something > like that). > LOL! It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything with any degree of seriousness... and few people can understand my warped way of thinking... when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as the next person... as the joke sails over my head! > Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down > software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn > an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their > little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you > can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all > pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt > I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad > luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to > go downtown.) > > > but I do know that > > Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin" > > . > > I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days! > > I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but > of course that can't be verified. > Well, I did a three month evaluation of Vista and was not too crazy about it... but then all my machines have been made from discarded junk... so I really don't have the H/W to properly evaluate it... All I can say is that it's still got a few bugs in it... but with new H/W it would probably be OK... (not that anyone who buys a new machine is going to have much choice in the matter) OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy support. It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W would work... but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and found that XP pretty much supported it all. Even though the ISA devices were generally configured automatically... The manual configuration process was simplified in that only valid combinations of IRQ's and com ports (for example) were listed as choices. > > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the > > preferable way to go. > > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really > > is more difficult to corrupt than fat. > > That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has > never happened to me. > > > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more > > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos > > boot floppy > > I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard, > sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your > data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using > a "superior' fs. > > I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a considerably better than average success rate... simply because I have a very hard time giving up . The biggest nightmare I had was when a friend of mine who is a professional photographer mis-interpreted a S.M.A.R.T. error. One of his 200 gig drives (NTFS) had developed a read/write error and had been giving him a bios SMART error... but ... as he had a film scanner that was called a "Smart Scanner" and he thought the error code was concerning that. I remember that he called me and simply said that his film scanner was giving him an error code... but it seemed to be working fine...and could I check it some time...no rush. I did not get there for a few weeks and by that time the HD had developed *extreme* problems. He had hundreds of hours worth of Photoshop work and hundreds of hours worth of scanned images from film on that drive. Though all the originals were backed up and he still had the film images for the rest... He did not have the drive itself backed up. Anyway...I eventually got about 98% of his data copied to another drive...but perhaps 15% of the data were initially corrupted... but the bottom line was that once the data were all copied over...even the corrupted data were then usable. Truth is I have never seen anything like that before...and don't know why...but am quite thankful it turned out that way. All I think of is that it was due to the NTFS ability to heal...due to the more extensive MFT entries as opposed to fat? Because most of my machines has removable drive bays...I have no problems gaining access to any drive... simply by popping it into one of my machines. I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it "superior" <G>
Guest thanatoid Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Re: filesystem "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:ukXiq1UoIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: <SNIP> >> Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD >> have changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a >> similar thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching >> (or something like that). > > LOL! > > It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything > with any degree of seriousness... > and few people can understand my warped way of thinking... > when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as > the next person... > as the joke sails over my head! I do /sometimes/ say serious things, but more online than in RL. Most people say I have no sense of humor and some say I have almost one - I prefer to think they're just to stupid to keep up. But when someone puts ME on, I am like the proverbial helpless chile. <SNIP> > OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy > support. It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W > would work... but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and > found that XP pretty much supported it all. That was nice of them. I guess they decided to do the "and now for something completely different" thing with Vista! > Even though the ISA devices were generally configured > automatically... The manual configuration process was > simplified in that only valid combinations of IRQ's and com > ports (for example) were listed as choices. I still remember IRQ nightmares. Just for nostalgia's sake (and because I never read it before, I am reading The Mother of All Windows Books (3.1 era) and just read about 50 pages on IRQ's. Well, at least I now understand what they are exactly. I have lots of opinions, but relatively little actual tech knowledge. >> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is >> > the preferable way to go. >> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It >> > really is more difficult to corrupt than fat. >> >> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it >> has never happened to me. >> >> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more >> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos >> > boot floppy >> >> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very >> hard, sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or >> all) of your data but you are left with the good feeling >> that you were using a "superior' fs. >> > I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a > considerably better than average success rate... > simply because I have a very hard time giving up . That's an admirable quality. I share it to some extent, less than in the past. It CAN be a little hard on the nerves. <SNIP> > I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it > "superior" <G> Aha, you DID get that one! -- The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children plays with time. Karel Capek
Guest philo Posted April 19, 2008 Posted April 19, 2008 Re: filesystem <SNIP> > > > OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy > > support. It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W > > would work... but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and > > found that XP pretty much supported it all. > > That was nice of them. I guess they decided to do the "and now > for something completely different" thing with Vista! > > > Even though the ISA devices were generally configured > > automatically... The manual configuration process was > > simplified in that only valid combinations of IRQ's and com > > ports (for example) were listed as choices. > > I still remember IRQ nightmares. Just for nostalgia's sake (and > because I never read it before, I am reading The Mother of All > Windows Books (3.1 era) and just read about 50 pages on IRQ's. > Well, at least I now understand what they are exactly. I have > lots of opinions, but relatively little actual tech knowledge. > > >> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is > >> > the preferable way to go. > >> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It > >> > really is more difficult to corrupt than fat. > >> > >> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it > >> has never happened to me. > >> > >> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more > >> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos > >> > boot floppy > >> > >> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very > >> hard, sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or > >> all) of your data but you are left with the good feeling > >> that you were using a "superior' fs. > >> > > I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a > > considerably better than average success rate... > > simply because I have a very hard time giving up . > > That's an admirable quality. I share it to some extent, less > than in the past. It CAN be a little hard on the nerves. > > <SNIP> > > > I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it > > "superior" <G> > > Aha, you DID get that one! > > Maybe <G> Oh btw: concerning that "smokers" photo. I did not reply back as my newsserver had gone down... I also make similar comments about starting to smoke! The photo has been on display in my GF's art gallery and has gotten a number of favorable comments...however she's the one who's actually selling. No problem with that
Recommended Posts