filesystem

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.

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

> >

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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.

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

> > >

> >

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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.

___________________________________________________

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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.

> >

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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.

> ___________________________________________________

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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)

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

>> >

>>

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

> >> >

> >>

> >

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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?

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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 .

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

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>

>

--

Posted via http://computerhelpforums.net Forum to USENET Gateway

Sign In

filesystem

Recommended Posts

Guest Jim

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest philo

Guest Jim

Guest philo

Guest glee

Guest Jim

Guest Fan924

Guest Jim

Guest Jim

Guest Lil' Dave

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Jim

Guest philo

Guest PVM

Guest philo

Guest thanatoid

Guest philo

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Similar Content

RTP Filesystem filter .sys error BSOD

Windows filesystem won't recognise Linux partition

Windows "filesystem" error

I found a null pointer access bug in fat, exfat and cdfs filesystem driver in windows kernel

Browse

Activity

Site Info