Scott wrote:
> "BillW50" <> wrote in message news:h9asfe$j06$...
>> In news:s%5um.179015$,
>> Scott typed on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:24:54 -0500:
>>> I'm thinking that when I formatted the external drive originally, it wouldn't accept a
>>> larger than 32GB partition in FAT32, which is why I put it in NTFS format. I've restored to
>>> Win98 in this format several times with no problem.
>>> I'm still thinking it makes more sense to put the Win98 images on a FAT32 partition.
>> Hi Scott. Yes I can see the point of that. <vbg>
>>
>>> When I get the new external drive in two days, I'll try formatting a larger partition in
>>> FAT32, and I'll let you know. Keep me posted on your test.
>> I just tried it with this netbook under Windows XP SP2. The only choice was NTFS and that is
>> all for this 60GB drive. So I must have used a partition manager (some are free too). But I
>> checked under Acronis True Image and on the top Tools -> Add Drive, will partition it and
>> format it in FAT32 too.
>>
>>> I checked this site, and I'm wondering what they mean about: "allow the FAT32 partition to
>>> work with the P+". What is P+ ?
>> Fortecstar Passion+ is my guess. And I guess it is an UK satellite DVR I think.
>>
>> --
>> Bill
>> Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
>> Windows XP SP2
>>
>
> Bill,
>
> I received the 750GB WD external drive. I used that free program, Swiss
> Knife", to format a 173GB partition in FAT32. Then I used WinXP - Control
> Panel/Computer Management to format the second partition in NTFS.
> Everything is working well.
>
> It looks like the 750GB drive has only 698GB of usable drive space, but I
> guess that's the way it is. I deleted the software that came pre-installed on
> the WD drive.
>
> Thanks again!
> Scott
>
>
The difference between 750GB and 698GB depends on who does the math,
Microsoft or the drive manufacturer (and us in the real world).
Windows computes drive capacity the lazy programmer's way, using 1024
instead of 1000. 1024 saves CPU cycles, very important when one is
programming an 8088 from 25 years ago, because to divide by 1024 is
simply a shift of the value in the computer's register(s) right 10 bits.
Typically, a shift instruction takes fewer clock cycles than a divide
instruction. With today's computing power, who cares that a divide is
slower than a shift? Microsoft should do right and simply use divides
by 1000 all the way throughout Windows, but if they do, something in
their fragile Windows mess would break... Ben Myers
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
