In actuality, WFW brought in a 32 bit file access for DOS/Windows back in
1992. This file access was built on the FAT16 file system and enabled 32
bit file access on existing systems, without having to reload. At the
time, the FAT16 was quite sufficient since disk drives were only a few
hundred megabytes in size and the space lost due to large clusters was
inconsequential.
In 1995, when Windows 95 was released, it continued the same trend, use 32
bit access on FAT16. This prevented people having to reload their system
to migrate to Windows 95, or having to migrate their file system. It also
enabled people to have multi-boot systems (so they could boot MS-DOS and
Windows 3.x) and to run software which would know nothing of a new file
system. However at that time, disk drives were approaching the 1 megabyte
size and clusters were growing. I have included a table which highlights
the problem.
Concurrently to these developments Microsoft was releasing Windows NT with
a new file system called NTFS. This file system was totally based on 32
bit architecture, but it necessitated a conversion from FAT16 to NTFS.
Once on NTFS, the file system is not accessible natively through DOS and
Windows 95, if you have a dual boot system.
In 1996, Microsoft without fanfare released Windows 95 OEM Service Release
2 (aka OSR2). This new version of Windows 95 introduced, amongst other
things, a 32bit file system. OSR2 is not something you can purchase at the
store. It is shipped on the very latest PCs, or if you buy a large disk
drive or if you buy a brand-new motherboard. Further, if you are an MSDN
member, you have received it recently. The reason OSR2 is so difficult to
get (so to speak) is that MS wants to make sure it is only loaded on the
very latest systems. Also, the supported installation procedure is through
a total install, starting with a disk reformat. BTW, FAT32 can only be
used by OSR2. Windows NT, 95 and 3.x know nothing of FAT32. OSR2 does
know FAT16. (Just a way of complicating the life of a support technician
and a vendor.)
This state of affair is due to the speed of technology development. I
believe this problem is experienced by most software vendors and
infrastructure builders. A perfect example is the current IPV4 version of
Internet addressing. Whilst more than sufficient when first brought out,
with lots of room to grow, it is currently the single biggest problem faced
by the Internet infrastructure. IPV6 has been touted as the savior for a
while now, but the phasing in of this standard is daunting at best.
Another example is what is happening in Houston this weekend where we now
have 2 area codes in the city and you need to dial 10 digits to call across
the street as of midnight yesterday.
All this to say, that I appreciate the problems MS is facing with NTFS,
FAT32 and FAT16. It is a difficult position, but I think the steps being
taken are the best under the circumstances.
Windows 98 is supposed to bring with it FAT32 and migration tools for the
file systems.
Here is the promised table. Remember a cluster is the smallest unit of
file space allocation. So a file 1 byte long uses a minimum of one cluster
on disk.
For FAT 32 (OSR2 only)
Supports disks up to 2TB.
Disk size under 8GB; cluster size: 4kb.
Disk size 8gb-16gb; cluster size: 8kb.
Disk size 16gb-32gb; cluster size: 16kb.
Disk size >32gb; cluster size: 32kb.
For FAT16 (Windows NT, 95, 3.x and MS-DOS)
Support disks ip to 2GB.
Disk size under 128mb; cluster size: 2kb.
Disk size 128-256mb; cluster size: 4kb.
Disk size 256-512mb; cluster size: 8kb.
Disk size 512mb-1gb; cluster size: 16kb.
Disk size 1gb-2gb; cluster size: 32kb.
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
Hicomp America, Inc.
[log in to unmask] www.hicomp.com/hicomp
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 fax: (281) 355-6879
-----Original Message-----
From: F. Alfredo Rego [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 1997 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: URL naming
Neil Harvey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I've bookmarked it now, so I won't lose it again (until I re-install
>Win95 for the new 32bit File system, that is).
I thought reinstalling was a thing of the past (as ugly as doing database
reloads, which Adager obsoleted in 1978). I see the curse continues :-)
Are you saying that Windows 95 is just now going to a 32-bit file system?
My Mac has been 32-bit clean since 1991 (or even before)... And MPE since
1987... Mmmm... Just wondering about the future, about which some
people passively seem to have no choice :-)
>I have noticed a trend on the web where sites are starting to allow the
>www to be dropped - I think this is a good thing, since the www has
>become somewhat superfluous, not to mention difficult to say at dinner
>or in pubs.
>So for instance, we allow our clients to be addressed as either
>http://www.bankmed.co.za, or just http://bankmed.co.za
>Initially, it's probably important (and courteous) to keep both going.
Most modern browsers don't need the ugly "http://" part if the URL begins
with "www" (just as they don't need the ugly "ftp://" part if the URL
begins with "ftp"). By "modern browsers" I mean Netscape and its "me-too"
counterparts by the usual suspect :-)
If the choice boils down to dropping ONE of the two ("http://" or "www"), I
would vote for dropping "http://".
So, your clients can address you as simply www.bankmed.co.za, which I just
did. Nice web site... I just refused the setting of your cookie :-)
I know the excellent work you have done to integrate your web site with
information from your HP3000s. Congratulations. It looks (and performs)
very well. It's great that you are now addressing the efficiency (and
aesthetic/diction) issues regarding the URL names. I am 100% with you. In
fact, you may have noticed in the newer Adager advertisements that I don't
say "http://www.adager.com" any more. I simply say: "www.adager.com".
This is a significant trend.
Concisely yours,
_______________
| |
| |
| r | Alfredo [log in to unmask]
| e | www.adager.com
| g | F. Alfredo Rego Tel 208 726-9100
| a | Manager, R & D Labs Fax 208 726-2822
| d | Adager Corporation
| A | Sun Valley, Idaho 83353-3000 U.S.A.
| |
|_______________|
.
|
