Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

stop spamung me asshole Me Maw

Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

requesting removal of spyware

Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

i would like to request any and all media associated with the following: Any and all Parties who contributed to, participated it, and or redistributed the following in question; any and all media , including but not limited to: recordings ; audio and or video, text messages, phone calls,

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 08:32:33AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote: Yeah, sorry. I was set off by this... > > >

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

This appears to be a never ending thread. ;-) I started it, an, for the record, I'm good (I've got a satisfactory answer--it seems I can put photos in subdirectories and the photo frame will work its way through the subdirectories). But, if you (all) are having fun, carry on ;-) On Monday,

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

Le tridi 13 nivôse, an CCXXV, Jude DaShiell a écrit : > msdos 6.22 which was fat16 had a limit of 112 files in top level directory. > Once I tried putting more than that on a floppy disk and couldn't figure why > no more would fit until I found this out. I don't know if the limit got > expanded

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:37:55 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > [...] > > > > Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics: > > Mpfh. Seems

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics: Mpfh. Seems I was a bit boisterous here :)

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

to...@tuxteam.de schreef op 31-12-2016 10:35: On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The >said

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but > > >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 09:16:10 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: > >> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > >>> From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system,

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > Think a little more about it: it is a limitation of the format, not > > the operating system. If an operating system extends the format, it is > > no longer compatible with the rest of the world, and then there is no > > reason to use FAT

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several > > non-M$ versions of dos. I saw an

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several non-M$ > versions of dos. I saw an announcement of yet another dos release just a > couple weeks back. I

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 04:35:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, > > > but never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but > >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The >

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The said "Feature" still was there when using ntfs in XP if I remember correctly. Perhaps it's just because

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:46:25 +0100 Nicolas George wrote: > > As I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of > > files in the > > top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you > > needed to > > have more files in a directory, you had to

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

On Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:49:42 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: ... > Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the implementation, but it is not > unlimited. > > Even for FAT12/16, the number of entries in the root directory region >

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like > the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to, > and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32? Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:42:33 -0500 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck. > >I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the >top level directory of a FAT32 (or

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

L'octidi 18 frimaire, an CCXXV, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit : > I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the > top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you needed to > have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory (and, as