clipka wrote:
> - NTFS is optimized for fixed media; FAT was *designed* with removable media in
> mind. (Note that a file system is more than the data structures on disk; it
> also includes some protocol of how to update them.)

Right. While it's true that FAT was designed with removable media in mind, 
it wasn't designed with removable media being randomly removed in mind. :-) 
It's quite easy to corrupt FAT by turning off the power or unplugging the 
media in the middle of an operation.

When's the last time you saw Windows run chkdsk on NTFS when you boot, 
compared to running scandisk under Win98 when it crashes?

Besides that, what's your thought on why FAT would be better for removable 
media?

> - Flash media internally typically use their own specialized file system anyway,
> to perform load balancing and bad block management. FAT is easy enough to
> implement a mapping to the flash file system in reasonably simple hardware.

I'll take your word on that one. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message