home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utah.edu!bangell
- From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell)
- Subject: Re: Another HPFS question
- Date: 16 Dec 92 12:09:26 MST
- Message-ID: <1992Dec16.120926.21594@hellgate.utah.edu>
- References: <1992Dec8.230307.27387@inel.gov> <Gary.Woodman.893.724047037@anu.edu.au> <1992Dec11.154229.28083@inel.gov> <BzAz3H.5My@sdf.lonestar.org>
- Distribution: w
- Lines: 37
-
- >>assuming a drive partition of 80 Mb? I understand that by using HPFS, you
- >>have to dedicate 512Kb of ram to it. With only 8Mb of total ram, this
- >>will hurt! Would long file names justify this loss?
- >>
- >That 8 meg you talk of is used up when you boot os/2. You have a virtual
- >machine now, you don't really need to worrying about where every little
- >byte gets used.
- >
- >IMHO HPFS is a must. FAT is dead. And if I were you I'd make the whole drive
- >HPFS get rid of the partitions you don't need to have them.
-
- this is true in some cases where you will use OS/2 exclusively ... but be
- careful if you need to share data with other OS's. I have gone back to FAT
- because of the instability of HPFS (I only have 1 partition now!!). The
- OS runs fairly well on HPFS but I see no performance difference between the
- 2. Super FAT is really fast.
-
- >Unless you require a DOS BOOT partition, but, just cut the string and go OS/2.
-
- your mileage may vary.
-
- -Bob-
-
- ---
- Bob Angell | Data Integration (multi-platform)
- Principal, Management Systems Engineer | Health Systems Engineering
- Applied Information & Management Systems | Database design/development
- 1238 Fenway Avenue - SLC, UT 84102-3212 | Simulation/Modeling/Neural Nets
- bangell@cs.utah.edu; Voice: 801-583-8544 | Product Reviewer-Major Publication
-
- [Standard Disclaimer: Speaking for the University of Utah, NOT!]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-