/ Sign-up
Your question

Win98 Partition Under 7.9GB

  • Font
  • Partition
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
January 6, 2004 2:52:50 AM

An article I read recently said you should keep Win98 partitions under 7.9 GB because efficiency reduces after this size.

Something about file bit sizes increasing from 4 to 8.

The bit sizes increases again after 16GB, etc.

Is this true?


<font color=red>DCB</font color=red><font color=white>_</font color=white><font color=blue>AU</font color=blue>

More about : win98 partition 9gb

January 6, 2004 12:36:54 PM

It's the <i>clusters</i> that double in size, which leads to an increase in slack space and reduced efficiency. Read this article from The PC Guide.

<A HREF="" target="_new">Partitioning, Partition Sizes and Drive Lettering</A>

Specifically, under "FAT32 Performance Tradeoff: FAT32 Cluster Sizes and FAT Sizes".

However, this does not mean that simply because you are using Win98 that partition sizes should be locked at 8GB, or efficiency levels drop through the roof. What the article may have been referring to is that FAT32 may be somewhat more efficient than NTFS when partition sizes are 4GB or less, and the same thing probably applies to 8GB partitions. After that, NTFS has the edge. Most people prefer using NTFS for partitions of 16GB or above, where the FAT32 cluster size goes up to 16KB or larger. But that doesn't mean much in the long run, as long as you are still running an OS that doesn't support NTFS.


<A HREF="" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>

<A HREF="" target="_new"><b><font color=purple></font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
January 10, 2004 5:58:12 AM

its only talking about wasted free space, the performance difference is negligable. cs game server -