# Solved: Vast improvement in performance of XP with 512Mb or more of system RAM



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

*Vast improvement in Performance of XP with 512Mb, or more, of system RAM

Defragmentation of Paging files, Master File Tables, and the Padding of Master File Tables, for systems running on NTFS, is vital for good performance.*

NOTE: Sometimes the amount of RAM in a computer is shared by the Video system. So you can buy a computer with 512Mb of RAM (total) where 128Mb is used by the video system and 'only' have 384Mb available for the main system. Adding another 512Mb module overcomes this problem.

It is much better to purchase a computer which does not share the main memory with the video system so that you can have 512Mb (or more) system memory _plus_ 128Mb video memory on the video card itself. So always ask if the video memory is inclusive (shared) or exclusive (not shared) withe the main memory.

Another common example is: 256Mb main memory less 64Mb video memory = 192Mb of system memory.
Not enough to get really exhillarating performance from XP!

NOTE: It is usually better to fit RAM in equal sized modules, 2 x 512Mb, 3 x 256Mb, 4 x 1024Mb and so on, depending on your use of the computer, the type and number of programs you are using, and the allowable maximum for the motherboard.

How to re-seat your RAM modules or add more: http://images.crucial.com/pdf/dimm_install.pdf

Clean Install XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

Example of partitioning an 80Gb drive: (Maxtor Diamondmax 7,200 rev/min with 8Mb drive-cache.)

80Gb (Decimal size) = 80,000,000,000 Bytes , divide by 1024 three times to give the Binary sizing:

78125000 Kb
76293·95 Mb
74·51 Gb

(10·0Gb = 10,000,000,000 Bytes (÷ 1024) = 9765625 Kb (÷ 1024) = 9536·74 Mb (÷ 1024) = 9·313 Gb)

Drive C: 10240 Mb (10·0Gb) Operating System & Programming. 2000 Min & Max paging file. (2048Mb on the drive.) (Drive Image Backup to CDRs or Data DVDs)

Drive D: 10240 Mb (10·0Gb) (My) Documents & Email Folders.
(Copy Backups to CDRs or Data DVDs)

Drive E: 20480 Mb (20·0Gb) Music only.
(Drive Image Backup, otherwise original Audio CDs)

Drive F: Remaining Drive Space. Archive, Video, etc.
(Archive Copy Backup to CDRs and/or Data DVDs)

Drive F: also has an Automated System Recovery (ASR) BackupC.bkf file for drive C: , to use with an ASR floppy.

All drives are partitioned & *FULL* formatted, directly from the Windows XP CD, to NTFS.

The installation uses Diskeeper 9 Professional, with Frag-Shield, to defragment the paging file and Master File Tables and to pad the Master File Tables when necessary.

NOTE: Defragmenting the paging file and Master File Tables improves performance, as does running on 4096 bytes per allocation unit clusters, which is the default size for NTFS systems.

Fdisk and delpart.exe should only be used to delete partitions which cannot be deleted otherwise.

*Bob Cerelli's XP Tips* http://www.onecomputerguy.com/windowsxp_tips.htm

*Free Service Pack Slipstreamer* http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4444.html
*Powertoys TweakUI* http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
*XP ClearType* http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/cleartypeactivate.htm
*Power Supply Calculator* http://www.jscustompcs.com/power_supply
*Free SP2 CD* http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/cd/order.asp


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Any system that's sharing the main memory with video memory isn't really a candidate for massive performance enhancements!


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Been seeing this post copied to a lot of other threads.

Are you always recommending having 4 different partitions? Isn't another possibility to just to keep all you data orgainized on the D: drive. For example, just put it in something like a D:\data\photos, d:\data\music etc.
Also, not sure that 10 gigs would always be enough for everyone's OS and program files. I've also found that, since you never fill up a partition, having too many wastes a lot unused of space like this.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Hello Bob, not exactly. It is intended purely as an example. I am the only user on this machine. You need 15% free-space on each drive and 15% of one quarter of a drive is the same as 15% of an entire drive.

Equally empty space is empty space, whether there are four empty spaces, or one big one, the space is the same.

If those who have a lot of programming need a bigger drive to install to it is worth considering using a 20Gb (or bigger) Master and as big a Slave drive as you need for storage.

It helps to keep the Operating System drive no bigger than necessary, as it makes it easier to image and maintain.

I had also considered having User space. With a Master drive, and a Slave drive with four partitions, each user can have their own partition for their personal data.

Master with C: & D: where D: is used to hold a backup for C:

Slave with E: F: G: & H: for Mom & Dad, Brother & Sister, for example.

You can then use Partition Magic to resize partitions if one gets filled up and another is hardly used or someone stops using the machine.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I just thought to add. I had suggested to the industry, some years ago now, that they adopt a twin-disk system where the computers were sold with a 20Gb Master and a hot swappable storage drive so that you could carry the second drive around together with a Laptop.

I had wanted three screens on the desktop PC to act as "Hard Windows" where you have one screen as an in-box read screen, a second as a out-box write screen, and a third as an application screen.

All in 90° A4 Portrait presentation so that you can get a complete A4 page per screen, especially useful for Adobe PDF presentation and, of course then for all other A4 based documents.

If you hold a piece of A4 paper in landscape position, on a 19", or bigger, monitor you'll see what I mean.

The alternative, for those who need a large Landscape screen as well, is to use a large plasma screen where three A4 pages can be presented side-by-side on the one screen. One advantage is that it has to be placed a bit further away from you so you don't feel quite so claustrophobic sitting right on top of a small monitor.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

See PLANNING YOUR PARTITIONS
http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm

Good reading on how to set up a drive(s). Also lets not forget the we can use removeable hard drives to for data and things that do not have to be on the PC.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Still can't see that much benefit in having 7 partitions. Would really like to see actual performance test data supporting the need for this.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Personally I don't see why it is that people have so many computers, except to play Big Brother games with them.

You can have as many partitions as you like really, with the right partitioning equipment, provided there is a real need for them. I just like to have my drive set up this way, as I find it makes it easier to backup all the data.

I don't see the point of dual booting, but I don't worry if people do.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Guess folks can have as many computers as they want. We have something like six in our house. Three for me for working and testing, one for the wife and one for each kid. 

And I guess you can have as many partitions as you want as well. Just as long as it makes sense for you and has technical merit.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I prefer country pursuits really Bob. Makes a whole lot more sense to me.

Depends what people want really. It could also be that with four data partitions on a separate Slave drive the My Documents folder could disappear altogether, to be replaced by four individual folders:

Documents
Pictures
Music
Video

One on each partition, to keep like files together.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

That helps clarify it.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Lots of good reason for partitions. If one partition goes bad you got the other. If you need to reinstall windows you don't lose what is on the other partitions. Doing a scan, defrag is a lot faster and you can just do the partitions that need it. Doing a AV scan or other anti sayware scans that like you pick the drives to scan are faster. If you ever find some and clean it up and want to do a 2nd scan to see if you cleaned things up you can pick just that one partition. 
My old IBM aptiva P-200 I had two drives in it and 4 partitions on each. The swap file was on the 1st partition of the 2nd drive and I also move the cache for netscape to that same partition. It really help speed things up and because having the swap and cache on it's own partition it did not fragment the other drives. I could months and months without doinf a defrag on some partitions


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Please read my previous posts carefully. There was no mention of the total amount of disk space used or free being any different regardless of the size or amount of partitions. Just that it can waste space using too many.

Maybe an example will help.

Let's say there are four partitions (OS, PROGRAMS, DOCS_PICS, VIDEOS). And just consider the available space on each.

The OS has 5 gigs free. PROGRAMS has 20 gig free. DOCS_PICS has 2 gigs free and VIDEOS had 20 gigs free. But you want to start taking more digital pictures but there is not enough room on that partition. While there is other available disk space, but it is not organized or utilized how future needs are now requiring. 

Now I suppose you could always keep running something like Partition Magic or some other program that lets you resize partitions as you need them. But that seems a bit risky at best, time consuming, and not always the easiest thing for most folks to do or purchase. Most of all it is unnecessary if you simply organize your data better.

So maybe a better phrase than - too many partitions can cause wasted disk space - would be something like - too many partitions can cause unnecessary wasted used of your disk space. Regardless of the wording, hopefully the example helped explain this a bit more.


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

RAM-PAGE, my primary computer runs an Athlon XP 1800+ processor with 512mb of pc3200 ddr ram. I multi-task bigtime. This machine still runs perfectly with Anim8or, Adobe Photoshop 6, Firefox(many tabs open), AVG AV, ZoneAlarm Firewall, MSNMessenger, Winamp, occasionaly IE, possibly other programs, all open at once. The ONLY time this machine has truly run slow has been when running Windows Media Player 9(which I do as little as possible).


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

hewee,

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "If one partition goes bad you got the other."

Are both partitions exactly the same? So if one goes bad you still have the same data on the other one? Do partitions go bad? Generally I see hard drives go bad. Never seen just a partition go bad. 

Usually I have two partitions. One for the OS and what it needs to run. The other is for everything else - data, programs, pictures, source files etc. All these are organized into as few directories as possible. 

The OS partition I image to the second partition. Then that second partitioned is all backed up to another hard drive. 

I'm not sure how much faster it is to scan or Defrag multiple partitions or single partitions with the same amount of data. Do you have performance data to show which is faster. Generally I like to Defrag and virus scan everything. Can't see the point in virus scanning only part of your computer. 

Also I really haven't seen that much tremendous performance gains with even relatively infrequent defrags. I would like it if there were. Tried this on a badly fragmented, never been done drive vs. a brand new one that had the same software install and was defragged. My slowest program, Adobe Photoshop took the same time to open with each drive. Just didn't seem like that big of a deal to get all worked up about.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Bob Cerelli said:


> So maybe a better phrase than - too many partitions can cause wasted disk space - would be something like - too many partitions can cause unnecessary wasted used of your disk space. Regardless of the wording, hopefully the example helped explain this a bit more.


Look at the price of hard drives now days and they are cheap. Sure it does waste some disk space but you gain more in how things work.

I tryed to find at Symantec web site on a news letter I got years ago about the good reasons to partitions but it is no longer on there site.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

hewee,

Again, never said it wasn't good to partition. Just not sure what specifically you gain in how you work by having 4-7 partitions. 

But if I had that many virus problems where it was worthwhile to create partitions to speed the scans up, I would start trying to figure out why there were so many viruses in the first place.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Bob Cerelli, You could get something bad like some viruse on you hard drive that takes over the whole drive or only take over a single partition and you can not get to anything on that single partition. Now you try to fix it but can not get it fix and the only thing left to do is a format. But now you only have to format the one single partition to fix things.

On defrag yes it can be many times faster when you have multiple partitions because if you have things on the other partitions like just data one one and download on another and images on another etc and have not used those drives then they do not need to be defrag. I do not any performance data to show you but I just know it takes me a lots less time. On the virus scanning I am only talking about doing a 2 virus scanning on the one drive or partition after you know something was only on that one partition. 
Partitions used to be needed before fat32 but then later it was not needed but then after that the drives got bigger and bigger so having partitions again are a good thing.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Absolutely never on any of mine or any customer's computer, had anything near this this happen with any virus...ever. Never had a virus "take over a single partition" to the point were you needed to reformat it. How often has this happened? It seems just too easy to prevent, even if it were possible.

I really don't like to work when defragging any partitions that are on the same drive. That disk is just being accessed way to much for any decent performance. 

Guess I would rather organize my partitions than create a lot of them. Still haven't seen any real numbers say how tremendously faster or easier it is.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well if your working with a lot of computers Bob then I am guess you have other PC's and drives are so you could try it out to see what partitions setup is best,
I know someone that has partitions all the way to I think Z. But he has a ton of movies etc that are on many hard drives and partitions that it is crazy.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

As I said in an earlier post, you can have a many partitions as you want. 

Just make sure it all make sense, has technical merit, and is easy to backup and maintain.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yep your right Bob. 

I think having the partitions also make back up more easy too.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Can you please provide the details for how backing up multiple partitions easier than a single one.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yea if I want to just back up images and they are all on one partition then it is more easy. I like to use the partitions as a big folder if you want to call it that, that has more sub folders. 
A partition for images, one for downloads, one for my image programs, another for the image programs ad-on's, another for backups on the PC.
Alot has to do with what programs you have and how you use your PC. So what works for me best would be over kill for you if all you have is windows and a couple programs.
Then I am sure there are other that would do something like I do but have there PC filled with movies and music.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> RAM-PAGE,
> 
> Please read my previous posts carefully. There was no mention of the total amount of disk space used or free being any different regardless of the size or amount of partitions. Just that it can waste space using too many.
> 
> ...


I would just move the PICTURES to the Video partition in this instance. But I put the Operating System and ALL programming on drive C: then image the drive before anything goes wrong and make an ASR Backup to drive F:

I would need to know the drive size and partition size as well as the free-space before I could comment fully. It took me four years of using ME before moving to XP before I came up with a suitable partitioning system for this 80Gb drive.

When it comes to safeguarding data though I don't rely on Magnetic media at all, preferring to rely on CDRs or Data DVDs. Remember that all of this is only good as long as there is electricity available and that don't come for free.

I don't use Partition Magic as it is safer to backup to CDRs and then delete ad resize two or three partitions. I never touch the C: drive partition after it is set. Mind you, when it comes to drive size. I don't have more than one wallpaper and have no screensavers at all, preferring that the monitor just goes to standby. I just have the one theme, Silver. If you take a look at the Desktops you'll see what I mean.

You see that I only have a 1000MHz PIII and PC133 SDRAM with a 7,200 rpm drive.

http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?t=57010&page=140&pp=15&highlight=Desktops

Many businesses using XP Pro with the capacity for 4 x 1024Mb modules (and I know of one private user who uses 3) won't allow drives over 40Gb because they don't want too much data on the drive. You know that losing data from magnetic media has put whole businesses ... out of business.

Like all of my friends in the legal profession, they prefer hard copy on ... paper.

I still remember hand cranked gramophones, 8mm movie cameras that were driven by a hand wound or 'clockwork' spring, and now someone has produced a clockwork radio for third world countries.

I guess a Solar powered laptop is the way to go.

See why I prefer a log cabin in the country, wife, horse, dumb dawg, and a little hunting and fishing, fields full of grain, maize, melons, sugar beet, sunflowers, tulips, grapevines, and all manner of flowers and vegetables.

Beats the concrete jungle every time.

Guess it depends on what you give thanks for, at Thanksgiving.

Not for "Big Brother's" DC dummy computer, that's for sure.

The Luddites would have smashed them to pieces years ago and would never have built missiles in the first place.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> hewee,
> 
> Again, never said it wasn't good to partition. Just not sure what specifically you gain in how you work by having 4-7 partitions.
> 
> But if I had that many virus problems where it was worthwhile to create partitions to speed the scans up, I would start trying to figure out why there were so many viruses in the first place.


Give you an example on that specific issue. You don't use archived material that often, so once defragged that partition isn't often accessed. I don't play music on the computer so much when I'm working on it, as I prefer to use the hifi system, so it doesn't get accessed that often either.

I don't write 2% of the documents I used to write in a day, only a few years ago, and more or less rely on email.

The OS drive is just 10240Mb with about 37% free-space.

If you have Diskeeper's "Set it and forget it" on all four drives it only runs every now and again on drive C: during a day and only has to run very infrequently on the other drives.

Now two partitions is OK, but if you keep mixed data on one D: drive partition then when it comes to defragmenting, defrag has to run through the entire file system if your doing it manually.

Automatic defragmentation keeps abrest of fragmentation as it occurs so DK 9 Pro should be supplied with every OS as a standard disk utility, especially where Frag-Shield is concerned.

With six out of eight partitions with Master File Tables which were too small, right after installing all the software, and an OS drive where the MFT was 99% full, the computers were having all manner of problems until the MFTs were padded out to an adequate size.

So I am just going to see if Frag-Shield is available on it's own anywhere. Never thought to do so before.

Defrag times on the existing set up, 22, 2, 2 & 3 seconds.

Sure beats waiting 24 hrs for a windows '98 machine to defrag 10Gb in safe mode. Then we discovered the hidden 37,000 news group emails in OE.

Still that's another story of one Woman's love affair with IncrediMail.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Can you please provide the details for how backing up multiple partitions easier than a single one.


For example. Music is often on the Original Audio CDs so it doesn't really need to be backed up for a home user. Handy for any establishment which plays background music though.

Wave editing files from old vynyl records are burned to CDRs too. So the Music partition doesn't really need to be backed up for the home user.

CDs cost money too.

So backing up is not necessarily easier, but it IS more selective.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Big-K said:


> My primary computer runs an Athlon XP 1800+ processor with 512mb of pc3200 ddr ram. I multi-task bigtime. This machine still runs perfectly with Anim8or, Adobe Photoshop 6, Firefox (many tabs open), AVG AV, ZoneAlarm Firewall, MSN Messenger, Winamp, occasionaly IE, possibly other programs, all open at once. The ONLY time this machine has truly run slow has been when running Windows Media Player 9(which I do as little as possible).


You have a better type of RAM and a higher bus speed.

What speed does your drive run at, and what is the drive-cache size?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Again, all you need to do is organize existing partitions better.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I think the real problem is that most people don't have ANY partitions as MS doesn't advise the OEMs properly when it comes to preinstalling using Windows PE.

OEMs would be better off installing to a C: drive partition, say 8192Mb for XP Home and 10240Mb for XP Professional, and leaving the rest of the space unallocated in my opinion. They just need to include printed instructions for looking at Help and Support on the Start Menu for partitioning and formatting the unallocated space. That way people learn a lot more a lot faster.

*E.G. How to use Disk Management to configure basic disks in Windows XP - MSKB Article Q309000*

Hence the idea for a 20gb Master and hot-swappable Slave drive. This gets people into the idea of drive imaging the Master and using Data separation by placing data on the Slave.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Absolutley agree that a single partition makes things a lot more difficult. For me, I have a local vendor that will configure both the desktops and laptops however I want. Makes doing things like OS images a lot easier. 

I guess my original main point was that a general recommendataion of 4-7 partitions for most folks seemed a little high. You might like it as a personal configuration but not sure how well that would apply for everyone else.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> RAM-PAGE,
> 
> Absolutley agree that a single partition makes things a lot more difficult. For me. I have a local vendor that will configure both the desktops and laptops however I want. Makes doing things like OS images a lot easier.
> 
> I guess my original main point was that a general recommendataion of 4-7 partitions for most folks seemed a little high. You might like it as a personal configuration but not sure how well that would apply for everyone else.


Hello Bob,

The original was just how I do my own drive with the maximum fdisk recommendation of four partitions per physical drive.

The rest was just intended as illustrations for MS as to how an OS could be configured for four different users, or so that four different general document types can be placed on different partitions instead of them being sub-folders of the (My)(ugh!) Documents folder.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

The title was a bit confusing - "Vast improvement in performance of XP with 512Mb or more of system RAM "

If the purpose was to recommend how your own drive is partition with four partitions, maybe it should have read - "How I do my own drive with the maximum fdisk recommendation of four partitions per physical drive.'


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Johnwill said:


> Any system that's sharing the main memory with video memory isn't really a candidate for massive performance enhancements.





Bob Cerelli said:


> The title was a bit confusing, "Vast improvement in performance of XP with 512Mb or more of system RAM"


It is as Johnwill says. The more inexpensive computers on the market use all manner of cost-cutting techniques which the Professional user doesn't really want.

Inclusive video RAM is one of them, under supplying RAM is another, as most computers are sold with just sufficient RAM to alow you to use the machine with only very basic programs, and there is a *very marked improvement* in performance, simply by doubling up from 256Mb to 512Mb (this is with PC133 SDRAM) especially with automated defragmentation programs and anti-spyware scanners running in the background.

Even with 512Mb of DDR RAM systems do run better with 2 x 512Mb and I have someone using 3 x 1024Mb RAM to good effect, for video editing.

Cost-cutting by the manufacturers includes, not supplying original software, supplying obsolete software, especially bundled anti-virus programs, and so on.

In any market place price war, the customer is sold short, as the only motives are sales volume and profit, rather than the provision of good technical services and technical expertise. The customer is then treated as a patsy, or a numerical statistic, rather than as a valued client or valued human being, which is all part of a tend which sees life as being cheap or a bums on seats "ethic", which is how some churches treat their congregation, rather like a bit of theatre, or cinema.

This has always been my experience, as I am sure Ralph Nader would be only too willing agree.

Have a nice day Bob.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Here is a old news letter from Symantec.

It is long but has good info in it. The links to the same thing at there site are no good any more.

Another one buy Peter Norton too.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

hewee said:


> Here is a old news letter from Symantec.
> 
> It is long but has good info in it. The links to the same thing at their site are no good any more.
> 
> Another one by Peter Norton too.


This is the salient point that Peter is making.

*"Increasing RAM is one of the cheapest and best ways to upgrade your system."*

See section 3 below for details.

Tip #3: Increase RAM

The best way to improve your system.

RAM holds the stuff you use when your computer is turned on.

You can think of RAM as temporary storage and the hard drive as permanent storage.
The more stuff (applications) you run, the more RAM you need. If you run
out of RAM, then the operating system (typically Windows) swaps
program code to the hard drive. Reading and writing from the hard
drive is much slower than reading and writing from RAM. The more the
system needs to swap, the slower the system functions. Consequently,
adding more RAM is the easiest way to improve computer performance.

*NOTE* The article is dated back in 2000 and his recommendations only apply to old systems using basic software and possibly still using FAT16, or which have just converted from FAT16 to FAT32, like early '98s.

I have a friend who still uses a PII with 64Mb RAM, a 10Gb drive, and Windows '98se on FAT32, converted from FAT16, very successfully with Office '97 and IE6.

It does run low on resources and needs re-booting, maybe twice a day, when it gets real slooooooow.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

RAM-PAGE said:


> You guessed. My real name is Peter too.


He hee good to hear Peter. 

I got years ago with SystemWorks 2.0 "Peter Norton's Complete Guide to SystemWorks 2.0" that can free with SystemWorks 2.0 a 560 page book.

Most of what is in the book is over my head but it is filled with great info,
Peter has lots and lots of books too.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Not sure I would want to use an article dated 1999, which also recommends FAT16, for also recommending my partitioning scheme.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

We're not doing that Bob, we're just recommending this bit, in this instance.

*"Increasing RAM is one of the cheapest and best ways to upgrade your system."*

This has always been the real way to go. Saves tweaking, and saves people a LOT of unnecessary wasted time, plus the very basic system will start to perform as it should do with the added RAM.

Remember that, because of the competitive pricing, computers are only sold with the BASIC MINIMUM amount of RAM most of the time. These days you can buy off the shelf OEM computers with 1024Mb RAM fitted as standard.

You can see how things have moved on from 64Mb with Windows '95/'98, to 512Mb for '98/ME/2000 to anywhere between 512Mb to 4096Mb for Windows 2000, Windows XP Home and XP Professional with either single or dual processors.

Now you see people using 64-bit systems which can use up to 16384Mbs of RAM (16·0Gb).

Now if your XP system is a bit low on RAM you can always go to the Control Panel, System, System Properties, Advanced, Performance, Settings ... Visual Effects, and chose "Adjust for best performance." then your XP computer will look more like Windows 2000.

I prefer to put in more RAM so that I can keep the attractive XP Graphical User Interface (GUI) and still have good performance.

That way I get the best of all World's.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Guess with folks keep changing what is being talked about, it's tough to tell what this thread is about. Memory or Partitioning. 

This is certainly nothing new. More memory helps a computer perform faster. Can't think of a time when this wasn't true. So that's pretty much a no-brainer. Wouldn't think there would be much need to even mention or discuss it.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

It is about both Bob, memory and partitioning, and as people are always saying that you don't need to add more RAM it is good of you to point out that systems do, in fact, perform better with more RAM in them.

Now we are at the point where we are no longer arguing aboout fitting - more - RAM to help improve performance.

So we can leave it here. Which is just where I wanted to be.

Thank you.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Not sure I would want to use an article dated 1999, which also recommends FAT16, for also recommending my partitioning scheme.


In fact I know of people, using NTFS on all other drives, who have a 2048Mb drive partition formatted to FAT16 just to run the paging file on, as FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Didn't ever recall there being any argument about more RAM helping performance. Perhaps something is not being read correctly. Could you please show where there was some argument about it in this thread. 

Also have never seen where people say you don't need more RAM to help performance. Like with partitions, there might be a point where more is not necessarily better. For example, I have 512 megs and my system performs great. Never use it all. So there is no need to go to something like 1 gig.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Saw one for sale recently with XP Professional, dual processors and 4 x 1024Mb of RAM.

And there is a Professional, Scientific, Business & Engineering demand for them.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Please read the posts carefully. Maybe that is where all the confusion is starting. Never said there wasn't a demand for that much memory. I would expect there to be computers sold with a lot of memory. Didn't think that was the point of this thread but it keeps changing so much it's hard to keep track any more.

Like I said, for my use, there was no need to go past 512 megs of memory. But that is not the case for everyone and shouldn't be misinterpreted as such. That seems to be happening a lot here.

For example, again, where was it argued on this thread that more RAM is not better? 

As a technical clarification, you don't need a small hard drive to FAT16. Just created one on my 60 gig drive with no problems at all. Now this isn't the largest drive in the world but it is certainly not a small one.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

So here's some of the confusion I've experienced in reading this thread.

1. It started out that more memory is better. Pretty safe statement to make. Not sure we necessarily need to hear it but that's ok. If it was just left at that, this would have been a pretty innocuous thread.

2. Then a recommendation about having four to sever partitions. Is this a recommendation for all people or just a personal preference. It started to get a bit muddy at this point since the title was regarding memory but all this other stuff started to slip in. 

3. Then it was how to use all those partitions, but no real performance data was included. 

4. Then it was back to the thread being about memory because people said that more was not better. Never saw that mentioned.

5. Then it was that people were arguing on this thread that more memory was not better. Again, never saw that either which seems to show how much is not being read or interpreted correctly. 

6. Almost the last post kind of typifies at lot of the comments that have been made. It was that a computer is being sold that has 4x1024 ram chips. So back to one of the original issues, is this a general recommendation or just stating that someone, somewhere, is offering has that much memory. I would imaging that someone, somewhere has done just about everything you can think of. But that doesn't make it necessarily a good general recommendation for everyone.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Dual processor workstations: http://www.aslab.com/products/workstations/dual_workstations.html


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

If you have software that will take advantage of dual processors, and a single one is being overly taxed, then dual processors is also a way to go. There are lots of different configurations available for people. It all depends on what their needs are.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

So a simple overview of what has been mentioned so far:

1. Memory is good to have and the amount depends on your needs. More is generally better. At some point you can have more that you need or will use. For example, if you are not utilizing 512 megs now, there is little benefit in putting in 4 gigs. 

2. Partitions are good to have and the amount depends on your needs.

3. Processors are good to have and the amount depends on your needs. Having multiple processors, if your software doesn't take advantage of it does nothing to enhance performance.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

RAM-PAGE said:


> In fact I know of people, using NTFS on all other drives, who have a 2048Mb drive partition formatted to FAT16 just to run the paging file on, as FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives.


I have heard doing the same thing is good. Read where other thing were better with Fat 16 also but thing change because of hard drive size limits and they needed a Fat32. But this deals with hardware and Fat32 you have less wasted space so you save on harddrive space. But that does not mean it is better.

Hey I think my next PC will be a XP Professional, dual Xeon processors.
My sister just got the Dell Precision Workstation 470 but with only the one Xeon processor. I have not seen it yet.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Having multiple processors, if your software doesn't take advantage of it, or you are not even stressing a single processor, does nothing to enhance performance. Again, just depends on your needs.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

But like having a 4 gigs of RAM on a computer when you don't even use 512 megs worth...it will sure look and sound cool ;-)


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

My image programs can use lots more so multiple processors and lots of memory would be good for me.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Unless you want to waste money just to have multiple processors or say you have multiple processors, you might want to take some time to investigae and confirm that whatever image programs you are using now are totally maxing out your current processor and memory. Otherwise it is just something to have. 

Reminds me of a friend to talked to some techie guru who sold him a multi-processor, 2 gig RAM, 2-256 meg video cards, 2-250 gig hard drives, 2-DVD burners, Dobly 5.1 sound card and speakers etc. - when all he did was Word, E-Mail and some light digital editing. He really was impressed, and wanted to impress others, with how amazing his computer system was. Most of were impressed only by how foolish he was given his needs as well as the expense he went to try and impress us. Would rather he gave me the difference in the decent computer I could have easly got him in wine. 

But I'm not sure what the point is for all the links showing that you can purchase computers with a lot of memory and processors. That has been the case for years. I would suspect that this thread could go on for years with all the cool stuff you can find on the Internet.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Wise words of wisdom Bob :up:
While we all enjoy the braging rights to performance, a persom really needs not much more than they will ever use(efficiently of course  ) 
My best upgrade was moving to a broadband connection with my AMD K6 500 Magitronic computer with 512 mb ram. I'd still be using the K6 if the motherboard hadn't gone bad 
My view is that 3 partitions works well for me, even when I ran dual drives. I let Windows file system keep things in order rather than partitions and defraging was never a problem.........and that's a FAT32 for me, I still use 98se.
I always had backup of things of importance to CDR's as well.

Just a comment: I gave my Mother a Toshiba laptop, 2.0 Celeron, 256 mb ram, 32 mb shared with video. After turning off the 'eye candy' and unused services, this computer has worked flawlessly and efficiently for the last 1 1/2 years. One partition, defraged 4 or 5 times , uptimes more than a month....no degredation of performance. It suites her needs 
She's 91 years old, online, and never had her computer infected with a virus, spyware or malware .....:up:.....(knock on wood.....she listens to her son  )


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

The real points are these:

1. Windows XP starts to perform better with 512Mb of RAM. Add more if you really need to.

2. Partitioning a drive helps you to safeguard your data and your installed operating system. As the Windows XP ASR program formats the operating system drive you cannot store the ASR backup on the same drive so you have to have a partitioned drive with more than one partition.

Similarly, if you make a drive image of the C: drive you only need to format the small C: drive and restore to it. This leaves the data intact on the other partitions. Having a drive image means that you don't need to reinstall from scratch when things go wrong.

3. Multiple processors are favoured by some computer manufacturers for use with software that takes advantage of them and a faster processor is better than a slower processor as long as it is matched to the rest of the hardware.

4. Systems using NTFS undoubtedly benefit from running with the correct cluster size of 4096 bytes per allocation unit, and will benefit from a defragmentation program which defragments the paging file and master file tables. Using a system of padding out the master file tables when they get too small helps to prevent fragmentation and speeds up system performance.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Just some thoughts, Iain 

If a drive fails, it doesn't matter how many partitions are on it, all of them on that drive are inaccessible.
I agree, an extra partition is handy, I have 3 all together on a single drive machine. And a Drive Image stored on a partition other than C is wise and convenient, but saved to CD's is even better incase of a drive failure and the need to set up another drive in short order.

With new drives being as large as they are, for me now, a second drive would just be more of an electrical load on the psu than a safety feature.

Many plans for back up depend on how much data is backed up.
I have an old P200 that I use off line only for the purpose of business, tax and financial matters. I bought an inexpensive $15 CD writer that came with Nero.
I do a fast data back up to another partition with IOmega software and then initiate Nero, click on data, with a CD in the drive that already has the folders I want to update.....Nero checks for changes and updates the CD. Slick and quick 

Of course, if your data is bigger than a CD, a DVD would be better 

As far as retrieving data off a drive that has a 'hosed' operating system, there are many run from CD Linux distros available and with Win XP, you can download from Bart's to make a Live Boot CD that boots up a minimal windows environment, from the CD, similar to WinPE but better, IMHO  ........and retrieve the date.

You can get Bart'sPE builder here: http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
I made my own Bootable Live CD with no problems and it works well, IMO.
Plus....it's legal


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I use Knoppix Jack and I have Bart'sPE, EBCD 060, and a range of recovery CDs and diskettes from 15 years of using these Big Brother playthings.

It doesn't matter how many backups to CD you do because when there is no electricity anymore you won't be able to do anything about it anyway.

Which is why all the people I know in the legal profession, use hard copy on paper.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

RAM-PAGE said:


> I use Knoppix Jack and I have Bart'sPE, EBCD 060, and a range of recovery CDs and diskettes from 15 years of using these Big Brother playthings.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many backups to CD you do because when there is no electricity anymore you won't be able to do anything about it anyway.
> 
> Which is why all the people I know in the legal profession, use hard copy on paper.


Buy a generator.
I did 

But, then.....I'm not a lawyer 

In your scenario of a world without electricity, I guess all those reams of paper will come in handy to keep the stove going the next winter  :up: good planning 

Take care bud


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Stoner,

I think you are beginning to see the type of moving "logic" you are up against in this thread. But it has been fun to see how much keeps getting added, changed and invented.

1. "Windows XP starts to perform better with 512Mb of RAM" - Not a rocket science statement. 

2. Partitioning a drive helps you to safeguard your data - Nope. Backups help you safeguard you data. Typically drives fail, not partitions. But in either case, no backup, no restore.

3. "A faster processor is better than a slower processor" - Again, don't need a rocket scientist to figure this one out either. 

4. "It doesn't matter how many backups to CD you do because when there is no electricity anymore you won't be able to do anything about it anyway." - Not ever sure where to being with this one.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Stoner,

And let's not forget this piece of technical inaccuracy - "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives"

When it's this basic of an error, it just makes you wonder about what other technical inaccuracies are driving some of the decision making when you read things like this.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Yes, there are differences between NTFS, FAT32 and FAT16. 

Is this really going to be needed to get added to the list of the obvious statements in the thread - like a faster processor and more memory is better?


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

What do you need all these rockets for Bob?

To be more able to live in peace?

Strange "logic".


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Again, please read. Not Rockets - Rocket Science. 

But I assumed that you probably lived in the US and had heard this before. Generally the phrase "It's not rocket science" or something close to that refers to something that is fairly easy to do, assume or is obvious.

So for example:

It's not rocket science to realize that "Windows XP starts to perform better with 512Mb of RAM"

It's not rocket science to realize that "A faster processor is better than a slower processor"

It's not rocket science to realize that "It doesn't matter how many backups to CD you do because when there is no electricity anymore you won't be able to do anything about it anyway." 

It's not rocket science to realize that "It is much better to purchase a computer which does not share the main memory with the video system"

All these are obvious. 

But then statements like:

"FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives", even after being mentioned several times with no comment regarding how incorrect it is, just give me pause (a phrase for makes me wonder). Maybe that one is rocket science.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

You can't have rocket science without producing rockets, Bob. But I guess that is obvious.

However:

"Windows XP starts to perform better with 512Mb of RAM"

"It is much better to purchase a computer which does not share the main memory with the video system."

Is not so obvious, as many people put XP on computers with less than 512Mb of RAM which have shared video memory.

Now that is the fault of the industry and the market place, so they should all own up and say Mea Culpa.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Yes, there are differences between NTFS, FAT32 and FAT16.
> 
> Is this really going to be needed to get added to the list of the obvious statements in the thread - like a faster processor and more memory is better?


Yes it is. Because when the customer gets it right they will have a lot less tweaking to do, and get better use from the machines which they spend money on.

Eventually they will be able to spot a rip-off when they see one.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Although people might put less on their computers, I still haven't seen any argument here that more memory, a faster processor, and electricity are all good for computers. Can you please reference where any of these was previously mentioned. 

And apparently "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives" is also not rocket science. Can you please explain this one as well. For example, what size constitutes "small drives".


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Stoner said:


> Buy a generator. I did
> 
> But, then.....I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> ...


I bought an oil well after reading about "Go well go Shell."

Nope, lawyers use computers which perform Read-Writs, and have a Basic Instinct (for) Own Survival.

Make good swimming partners though.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

I'll assume the inability to document either:

Although people might put less on their computers, I still haven't seen any argument here that more memory, a faster processor, and electricity are all good for computers. Can you please reference where any of these was previously mentioned. 

And apparently "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives" is also not rocket science. Can you please explain this one as well. For example, what size constitutes "small drives".

signifies how much is being misread and misinformed.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

RAM-PAGE,

Maybe it's time to take a deep breath, maybe a sip of wine if that is your preference. Take the time to read all the previous posts and hopefully you will finally realize that no one ever on this thread said that more memory or faster process wouldn't improve a computer's performance. 

You might also take the time to find an unused hard drive, boot with a plain old Win98 floppy and run FDISK without large hard drive support. Then create a FAT16 partition. So far I've done this on up to a 80 gig drive. The only reason I haven't gone farther is that I use my two 120 gig ones already. You might find that you really can create a FAT16 partition on something other than a small drive. 

At least lets get these two things cleared up.


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Someone said wine?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

AcaCandy,

I'm a red guy myself but have a few bottles of white somewhere around here ;-)

Hopefully RAM-PAGE won't go on such a rampage and at least take the time to look at previous posts to see that no one is arguing with him about more memory or faster processors being better. Would also like him to see for himself that you can create a FAT16 partition on something other than a small hard drive. He might want to do that for himself someday.


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Red wine is good 

How large was the Fat 16 partition that you created?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

2 gig FAT16 partition on a 80 gig drive. That's pretty much the size limit for a FAT16 partition (but not the drive size). 

I hope after all this RAMPAGE understands the difference between a drive size and a partition size. At least there has been no clarification even after posting this several times.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Just waiting to hear back something tap dancing like, yeah that's what I meant, a small FAT16 partition size. Not hard drive size. Yeah, that's what I meant to say. That's the ticket. After the misinformation has been mentioned and quoted at least six times already and not once taken the time to be clarified, qualified or apparently tested.


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Ok, that's what I was trying to figure out as I 'thought' there was a 2.1 or something very close limitation there.

RAM-PAGE, where are you my friend?  Bring wine, chilled


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

AcaCandy,

Since RamPage has been responding to other threads, I suspect he will not take the time to see that no one has disagreed with anything regarding more memory or faster processors being better. Nor will there be the time taken to see how you can have FAT16 or things other than a small drive. I suspect it would be a little mbaressing.

If things had been left alone, and just the first post of "Vast improvement in Performace of XP with 512Mb, or more, of system RAM", (which is somewhat obvious) been made, this would likely have been a relative innocuous post. 

But then it keeps adding and changing with all this other silly stuff like creating a very difficult thread to keep on top of. For example:

1. Needing 4-7 partitions
2. That some computers are sold with 4 gigs of memory
3. That some computers are sold with dual processors
3. That faster processors are better
4. Using partition magic to resize partitions when one fills up
5. Something about "hand cranked gramophones"
6. That "most people don't have ANY partitions" - And yes I am quoting here.
7. The whole NTFS and incorrect FAT16 issue

There's more but that's all I can remember without looking through all the posts.

Basically every time you try and respond to one thing, something else is brought up, the point evaded and now we're on to something completely different. 

Yes, more memory and faster processors are beneficial. Perhaps there is someone, somewhere that actually didn't know this already. Now they do.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob Cerelli said:


> Can you please explain this one as well. For example, what size constitutes "small drives".


About the same as constitutes small minds and other small things I guess.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

AcaCandy said:


> Ok, that's what I was trying to figure out as I 'thought' there was a 2.1 or something very close limitation there.
> 
> RAM-PAGE, where are you my friend?  Bring wine, chilled


It's in the ice bucket now. How do you use the pest control and put the ignore tab on?


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

It is unfortunate that you continue to be unable to clarify and resolve technical comments made in this thread. 

Instead you would rather make additional remarks like "About the same as constitutes small minds and other small things I guess.". While revealing, it does little to enhance the uncertainty of your technical capabilities. Even admitting you were wrong and owning up to making a mistake would lend more credibility than "How do you use the pest control and put the ignore tab on?"


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm

Do not confuse this capacity barrier with the FAT 16 Partition Size (2.00 GiB / 2.15 GB) barrier (which is exactly 2 binary gigabytes) discussed next, as that limitation is purely a file system issue, and completely unrelated to the BIOS issue we are discussing here. This particular size barrier began surfacing on systems in 1996. There are several options available for resolving this barrier, which are similar to those used for the 504 MiB limitation. See Resolving BIOS and Drive Size Barriers.

The FAT16 Partition Size (2.00 GiB / 2.15 GB) Barrier

The 2 GiB capacity barrier is unlike most of the other barriers we have discussed thus far, as it is purely an operating system problem that has nothing at all to do with the BIOS. It is different than the 1.97 GiB barrier, as it is BIOS related. In many ways, it is similar to the early BIOS barriers that preceded the 504 MiB barrier as discussed at the beginning of this segment.

The 2 GiB capacity barrier is a limitation on the size of disk volumes in the FAT 16 file system. Due to the way that disks are set up using clusters, it is not possible to have more than 2 GiB in a single partition when using either the DOS, Windows 3.x or the early Windows 95 version "Windows 95A". Under Windows NT, the limit is 4 GiB instead of 2 GiB when using FAT partitions.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

AcaCandy said:


> http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm
> 
> Do not confuse this capacity barrier with the FAT 16 Partition Size (2.00 GiB / 2.15 GB) barrier (which is exactly 2 binary gigabytes) discussed next, as that limitation is purely a file system issue, and completely unrelated to the BIOS issue we are discussing here. This particular size barrier began surfacing on systems in 1996. There are several options available for resolving this barrier, which are similar to those used for the 504 MiB limitation. See Resolving BIOS and Drive Size Barriers.
> 
> ...


Thank you Candy, I'll do that, as I was offered a "2·1Gb" drive for an old DELL Dimension 486/25s I still use with Windows 3·1 & Word 2·1 and a whopping 128Mb doublespaced HDD and all of 4Mb of RAM.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

As previously mentioned, it seems you have confuses a partition size with a drive size. 

FAT16 has a 2 gig partition limit
It does not have a 2 gig (or any other small) hard drive size limit.

This is even mentioned in the related links you have previously provided. Might want to take some time to go over your own posted links.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

"As previously mentioned, it seems you have confuses a partition size with a drive size."

I haven't confused anything, looking at that sentence. 

One physical drive may have one partition, or several.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

To help you recall your own words, on post #42 - 

"FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives"

Can you please, for about the 10th time, qualify or at least explain this statement.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Are you there? There have been numerous other posts from you recently. Yet there has been no response to help us understand the comments on post #42 - "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives"

Can you please take the time and have the respect for this forum to at least explain what you mean. Any supporting documentation would be very beneficial in helping to assure the technical reliability of the posts.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Since you have been making a lot of other posts around, just checking in to see how your testing has been going to see what size hard drive you can install FAT16 on. I got up to 80 gigs but that's only because both my 120 gigs have data on them.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I only ever use NTFS these days. FAT systems are on their way out.

(Unsubscribe.)


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Perhaps that is the cause of the innacurate statement - "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives" that were made. 

If you don't know, maybe it would have been better not to say anything in the first place. Just causes more confusion and doesn't do much to make folks feel like taking any technical advice.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

All about FAT16


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Thanks for all the many links regarding FAT16. 

Didn't see any of them that supported your claim that it can only be installed on small hard drives. 

Can you please post the specific supporting link.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

My old 95a pc I had two hard drives 3.1 GB and 6.4 GB and each had 4 Partitions


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Still see absolutely nothing saying at all similar to "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives".


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

FAT16 is not supported over 2·0Gb or 2048Mb.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

After all this, it seems you don't understand that partition size and drive size are two different things. That is what I and AcaCandy have been saying in the past to try and help you understand. But you keep confusing the difference between a small hard drive and a small partition.

As I, AcaCandy, and all the links you keep mentioning, FAT16 has a 2 gig partition size. That has always been the case. Nothing new there at all, especially for those of us that have used it over the years. 

But the statement by you that "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives", although repeatedly quoted for your clarification, does not appear to be correct. Yet you persist in trying to claim that it is.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

You now agree that FAT16 has a 2Gb partition size.

"That has always been the case. Nothing new there at all, especially for those of us that have used it over the years."

So you CAN use it on a small drive, a small primary drive, or a small logical drive.

Thank you.

(I have been using FAT16 since Windows 3·1)


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

RAM-PAGE said:


> You now agreeing that FAT16 has a 2Gb partition size.
> 
> "That has always been the case. Nothing new there at all, especially for those of us that have used it over the years."
> 
> ...


Or you can use it on a 250 gig hard drive with a 2 gig partition.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Yes, indeed you can. A small logical drive, being part of the larger drive.

Thank you Candy.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

"FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives". 

You continue to confuse and misread yours and other's statements. You also seem to continue to confuse partition size with drive size. You even stated that "I haven't confused anything, looking at that sentence. "

I never said anything contrary to FAT16 having a 2 gig partition limit. In fact have been trying to point that out to you.

And you CAN use it on small drives. But that is not what you stated. You said it can ONLY be used on small drive. 

Again all this back peddling is now very different from your actual comment that "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives".


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Mr. Cerelli, After WWII my Father resettled Latvian POWs in Australia. Their parents hung themselves so that their children could have a chance of a decent life.

I rather think that you have your priorities wrong.

We agree to disagree.

Good day to you.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

AcaCandy,

Maybe you can help Rampage understand that "FAT16 is faster, but can only be used on small drives" is not correct. 

He either:

1. Continues to confuse the difference between a partition and drive size
2. Tries to change what he said (lately CAN vs. ONLY be installed on a small drive)
3. Ignore yours and others suggestions at trying to clarify the difference between a partition size and a hard drive of size.
4. When all else fails, resort to completely irrelevant comments like in his last post. 

It sure doesn't do this forum any good to have people continue to treat it with such disrespect.


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Bob, I think you have re-clarified. Thank you 

I also think this thread has outlived its usefulness. I'm closing it before it turns into a battlefield


----------

