It's official. I am no longer FAT32.

(I wish I could say it's because I'm no longer fat...)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's official. I am no longer FAT32.

Why did you wait so long?

FAT32 was ok when hard disk sizes were under 1GB. Nodadays when a normal
HD which you get with a new PC is at least 500GB, FAT32 is extremely
inefficient. It has the problem that the larger the partition is, the
more space FAT32 wastes on it. It's also extremely slow for many operations
on disks of those sizes. (Defragmenting would be the quintessential example.
While defragmenting a 500GB NTFS partition full of files could take
something like 15-30 minutes, if it's a FAT32 partition, it could take
something like 15-30 hours. And that's no exaggeration.) It also has a file
size limit of 4GB.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-3-2013 13:12, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> It's official. I am no longer FAT32.
>
> Why did you wait so long?

LOL.
Either you did not get the joke or ignored it for humorous effect.


> FAT32 was ok when hard disk sizes were under 1GB. Nodadays when a normal
> HD which you get with a new PC is at least 500GB, FAT32 is extremely
> inefficient. It has the problem that the larger the partition is, the
> more space FAT32 wastes on it. It's also extremely slow for many operations
> on disks of those sizes. (Defragmenting would be the quintessential example.
> While defragmenting a 500GB NTFS partition full of files could take
> something like 15-30 minutes, if it's a FAT32 partition, it could take
> something like 15-30 hours. And that's no exaggeration.) It also has a file
> size limit of 4GB.




-- 
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's official. I am no longer FAT32.
>
> (I wish I could say it's because I'm no longer fat...)

congrats, FATSO33

(though we know you are a thin guy)

Post a reply to this message