Digital BW, The Print

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Keith, come on.  What I said is NOT wrong.  Because YOU haven't had problems
>doesn't mean others haven't.  It's a simple FACT, like it or not, NTFS IS
>more robust than FAT...FACT.
>
I'm not debating that as factual, I'm saying thar on a scratch/page/swap 
disk the additional robustness is not worth the performance hit..

Actually I've had to rebuild disks and partitions.. In every case the 
real problem was user error of one sort or another (ignoring the virus 
induced partition error/boot sector cases)..  Partitions with less than 
10% free space, swap files on boot-up disks, etc...

As I've said, running PSHop is NOT like running M$ Word, it taxes the 
system..  Run both it and windows using all defaults and you are asking 
for trouble..

>  No matter how many files are on it, it CAN get
>corrupted.
>  
>
sure.. and if one file gets corrupted?


>I AGREE that running the page/scratch/swap disk on it's own partition,
>that's not what I'm disagreeing with you on, and has no bearing on the
>unreliability of FAT.
>  
>
True..

We'll have to just disagree on this..

However, a bunch of incremental (even small)  processor cycle or memory 
hits add up quickly...  Especially if you aren't running a lot of RAM, 
those hits are better off avoided..


Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]