>School me oh guru, why then would you need it if the core portion of Win95
>is 16, yes 16, and NOT 32 bit?
You can have larger disk drives and waste more space per file,
and make your system incompatible with everyone else's
If microsoft had brains they would use the ext2 file system on Win 98 and nt
5.0
mud99
>
>On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Fred Viles wrote:
>
>> On 6 Mar 98 at 22:37, Paul Fontenot wrote about
>> "Re: FAT32":
>>
>> } And the difference would be?
>>
>> The main difference would be that fat32 uses 32-bit cluster numbers,
>> while vfat, like msdos, uses 16-bit cluster numbers. Another
>> difference is that fat32 support is not available in stock 2.0.x
>> kernels (or Win95 versions other than OSR2).
>>
>> Does that make it clearer?
>>
>> } On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, John Higginbotham wrote:
>> }
>> } > At 10:14 PM 3/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>> } > >Thats' odd, I mount Win95 with: 'mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /dosc/'
>> } >
>> } > That's vfat, not fat32.
>> }...
>>
>> - Fred Viles (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
>>
>>
>> --
>> PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST
ARCHIVES!
>> http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips
/mailing-lists
>> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>> "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>>
>>
>
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
