|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Actually FAT 16 with Drive Space 3 is more efficient than FAT 32. I suspect
it may be a bit slower due to the additional step involved. I have been told
that there may be some programs which may not function in FAT 32 partitions
especially DOS ones. I have taken the step of partitioning all but one of
mine to FAT 32. Be aware that to convert back to FAT 16 it involves losing
data on that partition when re-partitioning and formatting again.
I hope you find using these software tools for this procedure easy to
understand because I found that they were very intricate and cumbersome to
use. Good luck!
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Martinez <DanM@xxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ug@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<ug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: QP2
>UG:
>I appreciate your critique of my email. I'm sorry to read you're showing
such favoritism
>towards Unix. Give Windows 98 another chance. Maybe you'll find better
stability which
>will bring you over to the Microsoft camp. Be fair and don't show
prejudice. Most
>software is now written in Windows 95/8 and I don't plan to switch. Yes,
Microsoft should
>make their system more stable instead of inventing more unneeded features.
They should
>rewrite the Kernel so that anti-crashing software can hook into it.
Symantec has already
>complained about this.
>
>I don't know about other users, but for my system I take the precaution of
booting before
>downloading. I use, and don't attack me here, DriveSpace3. FAT16 is
wasteful with
>partitions larger than 511 MB. After that, the cluster waste increases to
25% and I find
>this ridiculous. I'm not going to have a 1 GB partition and lose 250 MB's.
>
>I plan to upgrade my system, including Windows 98 with FAT32, sometime in
Jan/99. Because
>CPU's have become so incredibly cheap, I'm going to buy an AMD K6-2 350/100
which should be
>in the $120 range. In Jan/99, other computer related improvements will be
released which I
>desire. I'm not going to bore the group with the details. Email me
personally if anyone
>wants my component recommendations for a fast and inexpensive computer.
I'll write a
>one-time generic email.
>
>I can't imagine anyone using a pager or Palm-Pilot for this ListServ. The
volume is quite
>high. Anyway, I just installed my new 56K US Robotics V.90 modem so I'm
happy. :^)
>
>Sincerely,
>Daniel Martinez
>
>
>
>UG wrote:
>
>> A couple of editorial notes on your email. First and foremost, thanks
>> for the input; I just ordered QP2, and am looking for any and all
>> information I can have on it; good *and* bad. Thanks!
>>
>> Secondly, as you might guess from my email, I'm a unix guy. Bigot, some
>> might say. I find it absolutely amazing that anyone should accept
>> having to reboot a machine _DAILY_. Some people even seem to think that
>> it's *SUPPOSED* to be that way! Vote for quality, folks. If you don't
>> want to use a stable OS, don't. If you need to use Windows, and I'm in
>> that camp, tell Microsoft to fix what they have before they start adding
>> all these "gee-whiz" new featuers to every release.
>>
>> And lastly, and I'm throwing myself at your mercy here, unless there's
>> some compelling NEED to use HTML-mail on a mailing list, please don't.
>> On mailing lists, there are a lot of people reading the email with a lot
>> of different systems. I'm on a unix shell account using a reader which
>> doesn't render HTML for me, I know of people who have the mail sent to
>> their alpha-pagers which don't either. And how about those of use who
>> might read this email on their Palm-Pilots? Unless they install the
>> web-app there which takes a lot of precious memory, they won't be able
>> to render it either.
>>
>> I didn't find anything in your email which NEEDED the markup
>> capabilities of HTML. What I *did* find was a lot of <...>'s that had 0
>> content.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
|