filesystem

The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three
button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what
are the changes?

I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim
Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network
server settings to optimize the HDD.

philo
Tue Apr 15 17:24:57 PDT 2008


"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three
> button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
> mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and
what
> are the changes?
>
> I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim
> Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network
> server settings to optimize the HDD.
>
>
>


With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32

that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
formatted.

The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would be to
convert Fat16 to Fat32

Jim
Tue Apr 15 17:44:45 PDT 2008

That I understand.
What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties. If
NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to other
NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of HPFS?
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three
> > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
> > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and
> what
> > are the changes?
> >
> > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by
Jim
> > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
network
> > server settings to optimize the HDD.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32
>
> that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
> formatted.
>
> The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would be
to
> convert Fat16 to Fat32
>
>

philo
Tue Apr 15 18:01:42 PDT 2008


"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> That I understand.
> What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties.
If
> NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to
other
> NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of
HPFS?


OS/2 was the predicessor to NT

OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition

but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS
(though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed
on a HPFS partition)

The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending
on which version of NT you go back to

they can also use either fat32 or Fat16


The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that can
create and install to a
4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity


Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows
would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for win95A
which will work only with fat16)

NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097




> news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has
three
> > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
> > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem
and
> > what
> > > are the changes?
> > >
> > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by
> Jim
> > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
> network
> > > server settings to optimize the HDD.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32
> >
> > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
> > formatted.
> >
> > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would
be
> to
> > convert Fat16 to Fat32
> >
> >
>
>

glee
Tue Apr 15 19:45:19 PDT 2008

It doesn't change the file system at all. It changes the PathCache and NameCache
settings in the Registry. This just affects the number of paths and filenames that
are cached. Network server cached more than Desktop, and Desktop more than Mobile.
Back when 8 or 16 MB of RAM was the norm, there was a common online tip for Win95 at
that time to use the Network Server setting. Actually, the logic was incorrect in
even that suggestion. Nowadays with the larger amounts if RAM installed, you would
not see a difference at either the Desktop or Server setting.

I think it was Raymond Chen who stated once that the difference in the amount of RAM
used at the different settings versus the performance change, would pretty much
cancel each other out, and there would be no perceivable difference at either
Desktop or Network Server.

Definition of the "Typical Role of This Machine" Setting
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q140679/

Leave it at Desktop.

--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm


"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three
> button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
> mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and what
> are the changes?
>
> I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by Jim
> Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about network
> server settings to optimize the HDD.
>
>
>

Fan924
Tue Apr 15 19:54:03 PDT 2008

Quoted from
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140679
___________________________________________________

You can set the Typical Role Of This Machine setting to the following
settings:
* Desktop Computer
* Mobile Or Docking System
* Network Server
The setting you use controls the size of various internal data
structures used by the 32-bit file access driver (VFAT) that are used
to optimize disk space.

When you use the Desktop Computer setting, VFAT allocates memory to
record the 32 most recently accessed folders and the 677 most recently
accessed files. This consumes approximately 10K of memory.

When you use the Mobile Or Docking System setting, VFAT allocates
memory to record the 16 most recently accessed folders and the 337
most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 5K of
memory.

When you use the Network Server setting, VFAT allocates memory to
record the 64 most recently accessed folders and the 2729 most
recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 40K of memory.
___________________________________________________

Jim
Tue Apr 15 19:50:58 PDT 2008

I'm sorry philo, the more I read the puncher I get. I might need to start
fresh again tomorrow. I just do not know why MS does not tell anyone much
about these system properties advanced settings. My experience was that the
machine performed better on the Eshelman recommendation...but I hate not
knowing exactly what is happening there! This is already a fat 32 and to
change this advanced setting required only a reboot. This could be a
combination of kernel functions that enhance a soho of wfw with ics not big
enough to need NT. Also as client for MS networks you can log on to an NT
server with a domain and username/password.
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > That I understand.
> > What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties.
> If
> > NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to
> other
> > NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of
> HPFS?
>
>
> OS/2 was the predicessor to NT
>
> OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition
>
> but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS
> (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed
> on a HPFS partition)
>
> The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending
> on which version of NT you go back to
>
> they can also use either fat32 or Fat16
>
>
> The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that
can
> create and install to a
> 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity
>
>
> Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows
> would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for
win95A
> which will work only with fat16)
>
> NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097
>
>
>
>
> > news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has
> three
> > > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem:
desktop,
> > > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem
> and
> > > what
> > > > are the changes?
> > > >
> > > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems
by
> > Jim
> > > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
> > network
> > > > server settings to optimize the HDD.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32
> > >
> > > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
> > > formatted.
> > >
> > > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would
> be
> > to
> > > convert Fat16 to Fat32
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Jim
Tue Apr 15 20:15:32 PDT 2008

Thanks for clarifying that moot point.
I bumped up my RAM early on this machine to 256 Mbytes. It did seem like
better performance though. I really will know now that I switched back to
the desktop setting. It was lacking explanation in the Help so I have a
desire to experiment. I also have a desire for an OS that is straight
forward, simple and secure at the kernel layer
.
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:OECUmv2nIHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> It doesn't change the file system at all. It changes the PathCache and
NameCache
> settings in the Registry. This just affects the number of paths and
filenames that
> are cached. Network server cached more than Desktop, and Desktop more
than Mobile.
> Back when 8 or 16 MB of RAM was the norm, there was a common online tip
for Win95 at
> that time to use the Network Server setting. Actually, the logic was
incorrect in
> even that suggestion. Nowadays with the larger amounts if RAM installed,
you would
> not see a difference at either the Desktop or Server setting.
>
> I think it was Raymond Chen who stated once that the difference in the
amount of RAM
> used at the different settings versus the performance change, would pretty
much
> cancel each other out, and there would be no perceivable difference at
either
> Desktop or Network Server.
>
> Definition of the "Typical Role of This Machine" Setting
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q140679/
>
> Leave it at Desktop.
>
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has three
> > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem: desktop,
> > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem and
what
> > are the changes?
> >
> > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems by
Jim
> > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
network
> > server settings to optimize the HDD.
> >
> >
> >
>

Jim
Tue Apr 15 20:41:57 PDT 2008

Thanks, this is liberating us of an old urban myth.

"Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:daa6540b-4d6f-4398-aa51-8014da5cb183@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Quoted from
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140679
> ___________________________________________________
>
> You can set the Typical Role Of This Machine setting to the following
> settings:
> * Desktop Computer
> * Mobile Or Docking System
> * Network Server
> The setting you use controls the size of various internal data
> structures used by the 32-bit file access driver (VFAT) that are used
> to optimize disk space.
>
> When you use the Desktop Computer setting, VFAT allocates memory to
> record the 32 most recently accessed folders and the 677 most recently
> accessed files. This consumes approximately 10K of memory.
>
> When you use the Mobile Or Docking System setting, VFAT allocates
> memory to record the 16 most recently accessed folders and the 337
> most recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 5K of
> memory.
>
> When you use the Network Server setting, VFAT allocates memory to
> record the 64 most recently accessed folders and the 2729 most
> recently accessed files. This consumes approximately 40K of memory.
> ___________________________________________________
>

Lil'
Tue Apr 15 21:15:51 PDT 2008

Win95 original/Win95A, FAT16 only.
Win95B and C, FAT16 and FAT32.

--
Dave

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows
> would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for
> win95A
> which will work only with fat16)

Gary
Tue Apr 15 22:17:34 PDT 2008

Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent you
got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance settings
to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do with
the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> That I understand.
>> What I do not understand is what is the difference in system properties.
> If
>> NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to
> other
>> NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of
> HPFS?
>
>
> OS/2 was the predicessor to NT
>
> OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition
>
> but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS
> (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be installed
> on a HPFS partition)
>
> The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though depending
> on which version of NT you go back to
>
> they can also use either fat32 or Fat16
>
>
> The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that
> can
> create and install to a
> 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity
>
>
> Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows
> would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for
> win95A
> which will work only with fat16)
>
> NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097
>
>
>
>
>> news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has
> three
>> > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem:
>> > > desktop,
>> > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem
> and
>> > what
>> > > are the changes?
>> > >
>> > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems
>> > > by
>> Jim
>> > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
>> network
>> > > server settings to optimize the HDD.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32
>> >
>> > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
>> > formatted.
>> >
>> > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows would
> be
>> to
>> > convert Fat16 to Fat32
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Jim
Wed Apr 16 13:25:56 PDT 2008

yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon.
Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the
other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this topic
: System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file system>"Typical
Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent
you
> got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance
settings
> to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do
with
> the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Okp4O11nIHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:utTdbs1nIHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> That I understand.
> >> What I do not understand is what is the difference in system
properties.
> > If
> >> NT before 4.0 is based on HPFS and there is a necessary convert.exe to
> > other
> >> NT and HPFS is based on OS/2 and IBM pc-dos, then is this some type of
> > HPFS?
> >
> >
> > OS/2 was the predicessor to NT
> >
> > OS/2 could be installed on either a fat16 or HPFS partition
> >
> > but NT4 and above cannot utilize HPFS
> > (though IIRC NT3.1 and NT3.5 can recongnize HPFS, they cannot be
installed
> > on a HPFS partition)
> >
> > The preferable file system for NT would of course be NTFS though
depending
> > on which version of NT you go back to
> >
> > they can also use either fat32 or Fat16
> >
> >
> > The one very interesting fact is that NT4 is the only OS I know of that
> > can
> > create and install to a
> > 4 gig fat16 partition...a real oddity
> >
> >
> > Any file system conversion that can be perfromed from within windows
> > would be to convert fat 16 to fat32 that would be win9x (except for
> > win95A
> > which will work only with fat16)
> >
> > NT also has the ability to convert fat to NTFS
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314097
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> news:Oqdchg1nIHA.5024@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> >
> >> > "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > news:e3vesW1nIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> > > The system properties on the performance tab advanced settings has
> > three
> >> > > button choices at the bottom. The first choice is filesystem:
> >> > > desktop,
> >> > > mobile docking, network server. How does this change the filesystem
> > and
> >> > what
> >> > > are the changes?
> >> > >
> >> > > I remember something on a Aumha discussion about legacy filesystems
> >> > > by
> >> Jim
> >> > > Eshelman on this topic, but now I can not find it. Something about
> >> network
> >> > > server settings to optimize the HDD.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > With Win98 you have a choice of either Fat16 or Fat32
> >> >
> >> > that would be done initially when the drive is first partitioned and
> >> > formatted.
> >> >
> >> > The only way the file sytem could be changed from within Windows
would
> > be
> >> to
> >> > convert Fat16 to Fat32
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

philo
Wed Apr 16 16:18:15 PDT 2008


"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon.
> Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the
> other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this
topic
> : System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file system>"Typical
> Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real talent
> you
> > got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance
> settings
> > to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do
> with
> > the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS-MVP Shell/User
> > www.grystmill.com
> >


Gary:

I saw your post just by chance here...
I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times...


Anyway, the OP had asked *two* questions.
One about file systems and one about performance...
So I chose to answer the one pertaining to files systems.
As you may have noticed, a few other folks have covered the performance
issue pretty well.

Anyway...my sincere best wishes for the upcomming holiday...
I may decide to unplonk you afterwards.

Of course I am probably too big of an idiot to figure out
how to unplonk you .<G>

PVM
Wed Apr 16 17:23:57 PDT 2008

Full-Quoter philo wrote:

> Gary:
>
> I saw your post just by chance here...
> I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times..
> I may decide to unplonk you afterwards.

Gary is definately plonk material.

Isin't that right Gary?

philo
Wed Apr 16 17:36:05 PDT 2008


"PVM" <PVM@Grystmill.com> wrote in message
news:4806989D.D6BA263C@Grystmill.com...
> Full-Quoter philo wrote:
>
> > Gary:
> >
> > I saw your post just by chance here...
> > I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times..
> > I may decide to unplonk you afterwards.
>
> Gary is definately plonk material.
>
> Isin't that right Gary?


I found him a bit emotional...
but then Usenet can be a good form of entertainment .

thanatoid
Wed Apr 16 19:25:44 PDT 2008

"Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in
news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by
> noon. Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the
> topic above. On the other hand, this tells you all that
> there is genuine confusion in this topic
>: System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file
>: system>"Typical
> Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading...
> for win98.x

<SNIP>

I've always had all my /standalone/ computers set for "network
servers" because in 95 or 96 (when DID 95A come out?) someone
told me, /quote/, "these settings are to be ignored and set for
network server for best performance".

Obviously, the article quoted explains why (I never /knew/ why
but I trusted my "teacher") makes it clear the "load" if you can
even call it that on the machine is negligible. And anyone doing
ANYTHING half-serious was going to have more than 16MB of RAM on
a computer even in 1995.

As for the confusion, IMO it's typical of MS. Take something
MOST people ARE capable of understanding (this one is as simple
as they get IMO), give it a name which has little or nothing to
do with the function in question, and confuse the hell out of
everyone.

As for the REAL "file system", maybe it's just me, but it never
even occurred to me that changing that setting would affect
whether the computer was FAT16 or 32. That was always the first
decision when setting up a machine at the fdisk stage and I
always knew once Windows was installed it was /not/ changing.
Thanks to small OEM's and their offering 95B and C while A was
STILL being sold in stores and with new brand-name systems
(incredible), my first 'own' (AOT work) machine was FAT32.

Not to stray/bore you further, but having read at least one MVP
(!) refer to NTFS as "fiasco" in some post, I am quite happy not
to even have the option (I am staying with 9x and if my current
machine(s) outlive me - this one is now 10½ yrs old and going
strong! - it's Linux time).

Do XP and Vista still come with the setting (found in another
tab of the same box) for the CD-ROM drive being 1x, 2x, or "4x
or higher"? ;-) It would NOT surprise me.


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.

Karel Capek

philo
Wed Apr 16 22:54:18 PDT 2008


"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A82DA4F2DF9Cthanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in
> news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
> > yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by
> > noon. Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the
> > topic above. On the other hand, this tells you all that
> > there is genuine confusion in this topic
> >: System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file
> >: system>"Typical
> > Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading...
> > for win98.x
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I've always had all my /standalone/ computers set for "network
> servers" because in 95 or 96 (when DID 95A come out?) someone
> told me, /quote/, "these settings are to be ignored and set for
> network server for best performance".
>
> Obviously, the article quoted explains why (I never /knew/ why
> but I trusted my "teacher") makes it clear the "load" if you can
> even call it that on the machine is negligible. And anyone doing
> ANYTHING half-serious was going to have more than 16MB of RAM on
> a computer even in 1995.
>
> As for the confusion, IMO it's typical of MS. Take something
> MOST people ARE capable of understanding (this one is as simple
> as they get IMO), give it a name which has little or nothing to
> do with the function in question, and confuse the hell out of
> everyone.
>
> As for the REAL "file system", maybe it's just me, but it never
> even occurred to me that changing that setting would affect
> whether the computer was FAT16 or 32. That was always the first
> decision when setting up a machine at the fdisk stage and I
> always knew once Windows was installed it was /not/ changing.
> Thanks to small OEM's and their offering 95B and C while A was
> STILL being sold in stores and with new brand-name systems
> (incredible), my first 'own' (AOT work) machine was FAT32.
>
> Not to stray/bore you further, but having read at least one MVP
> (!) refer to NTFS as "fiasco" in some post, I am quite happy not
> to even have the option (I am staying with 9x and if my current
> machine(s) outlive me - this one is now 10½ yrs old and going
> strong! - it's Linux time).
>
> Do XP and Vista still come with the setting (found in another
> tab of the same box) for the CD-ROM drive being 1x, 2x, or "4x
> or higher"? ;-) It would NOT surprise me.
>
>


Hey nice seeing .
My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been hanging out over here.
I don't think XP and Vista have specific settings for cdrom speed...
but I do know that Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin"
.
I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days!


As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the preferable way
to go.
I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really is more difficult
to corrupt than fat.
Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more difficult to fix than
by simply booting up with a dos
boot floppy

Gary
Thu Apr 17 09:05:38 PDT 2008

The OP NEVER asked about file systems. He asked about a setting, one choice
of which is filesystem. The latter has NOTHING to do with the former.

I can't kill file you. You're too entertaining now. (Yes, I'm quite bored
these days. Back to harassing idiots.)

Seriously, Philo, when you're so wrong, so often, or so prone to adding your
worthless two cents, which only confuses the entire thread, someone has to
call you on it. I'm it.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:OHooWgBoIHA.4292@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim" <invalid@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eP8pdAAoIHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> yes, i did feel vacant this moroning, but it cleared by noon.
>> Actually, it was my fault for injecting that into the topic above. On the
>> other hand, this tells you all that there is genuine confusion in this
> topic
>> : System Properties>performance tab>advanced settings>file
>> system>"Typical
>> Role of this Computer". This urban myth is misleading... for win98.x
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:uBGkoE4nIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> > Boy, do you know how to screw things up. Seriously, that's a real
>> > talent
>> you
>> > got there, <g>. You managed to take the discussion from performance
>> settings
>> > to file system to operating system, the last two having NOTHING! to do
>> with
>> > the issue at hand. You went and burned some of poor Jim's transistors.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Gary S. Terhune
>> > MS-MVP Shell/User
>> > www.grystmill.com
>> >
>
>
> Gary:
>
> I saw your post just by chance here...
> I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times...
>
>
> Anyway, the OP had asked *two* questions.
> One about file systems and one about performance...
> So I chose to answer the one pertaining to files systems.
> As you may have noticed, a few other folks have covered the performance
> issue pretty well.
>
> Anyway...my sincere best wishes for the upcomming holiday...
> I may decide to unplonk you afterwards.
>
> Of course I am probably too big of an idiot to figure out
> how to unplonk you .<G>
>
>
>
>
>

Gary
Thu Apr 17 09:07:10 PDT 2008

Who, me? Sure, why not. If you don't have a QUESTION about the use of
Windows 98 that I can answer, I couldn't care less what you do or where you
go.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"PVM" <PVM@Grystmill.com> wrote in message
news:4806989D.D6BA263C@Grystmill.com...
> Full-Quoter philo wrote:
>
>> Gary:
>>
>> I saw your post just by chance here...
>> I had to killfile you a while back as you are impossible at times..
>> I may decide to unplonk you afterwards.
>
> Gary is definately plonk material.
>
> Isin't that right Gary?

thanatoid
Thu Apr 17 21:34:08 PDT 2008

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

> Hey nice seeing .

Likewise.

> My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been
> hanging out over here.

You don't get 24hour.hd on this one?

> I don't think XP and Vista have
> specific settings for cdrom speed...

Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have
changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar
thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something
like that).

Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down
software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn
an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their
little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you
can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all
pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt
I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad
luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to
go downtown.)

> but I do know that
> Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin"
> .
> I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days!

I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but
of course that can't be verified.

> As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the
> preferable way to go.
> I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really
> is more difficult to corrupt than fat.

That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has
never happened to me.

> Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
> difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
> boot floppy

I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard,
sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your
data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using
a "superior' fs.


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.

Karel Capek

philo
Fri Apr 18 05:13:06 PDT 2008


"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A83F010B66C0thanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Hey nice seeing .
>
> Likewise.
>
> > My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been
> > hanging out over here.
>
> You don't get 24hour.hd on this one?


My regular newsserver is now back on line...
and I have already started one of my odd-ball posts already


>
> > I don't think XP and Vista have
> > specific settings for cdrom speed...
>
> Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have
> changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar
> thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something
> like that).
>

LOL!

It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything with any degree
of seriousness...
and few people can understand my warped way of thinking...
when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as the next
person...
as the joke sails over my head!

> Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down
> software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn
> an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their
> little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you
> can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all
> pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt
> I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad
> luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to
> go downtown.)
>
> > but I do know that
> > Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin"
> > .
> > I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days!
>
> I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but
> of course that can't be verified.
>

Well, I did a three month evaluation of Vista and was not too crazy about
it...
but then all my machines have been made from discarded junk...
so I really don't have the H/W to properly evaluate it...
All I can say is that it's still got a few bugs in it...
but with new H/W it would probably be OK...
(not that anyone who buys a new machine is going to have much choice in the
matter)

OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy support.
It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W would work...
but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and found that XP pretty much
supported it all.
Even though the ISA devices were generally configured automatically...
The manual configuration process was simplified in that only valid
combinations of IRQ's and com ports (for example)
were listed as choices.

> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the
> > preferable way to go.
> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really
> > is more difficult to corrupt than fat.
>
> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has
> never happened to me.
>
> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
> > boot floppy
>
> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard,
> sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your
> data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using
> a "superior' fs.
>
>


I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a considerably better
than average success rate...
simply because I have a very hard time giving up .

The biggest nightmare I had was when a friend of mine who is a professional
photographer mis-interpreted a S.M.A.R.T.
error. One of his 200 gig drives (NTFS) had developed a read/write error and
had been giving him a bios SMART error...
but ... as he had a film scanner that was called a "Smart Scanner" and he
thought the error code was concerning that.

I remember that he called me and simply said that his film scanner was
giving him an error code...
but it seemed to be working fine...and could I check it some time...no rush.

I did not get there for a few weeks and by that time the HD had developed
*extreme* problems.
He had hundreds of hours worth of Photoshop work and hundreds of hours worth
of scanned images from film
on that drive. Though all the originals were backed up and he still had the
film images for the rest...
He did not have the drive itself backed up.

Anyway...I eventually got about 98% of his data copied to another
drive...but perhaps 15% of the data were initially corrupted...
but the bottom line was that once the data were all copied over...even the
corrupted data were then usable.

Truth is I have never seen anything like that before...and don't know
why...but am quite thankful it turned out that way.
All I think of is that it was due to the NTFS ability to heal...due to the
more extensive MFT entries as opposed to fat?

Because most of my machines has removable drive bays...I have no problems
gaining access to any drive...
simply by popping it into one of my machines.

I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it "superior" <G>

thanatoid
Fri Apr 18 18:59:46 PDT 2008

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
news:ukXiq1UoIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

>> Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD
>> have changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a
>> similar thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching
>> (or something like that).
>
> LOL!
>
> It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything
> with any degree of seriousness...
> and few people can understand my warped way of thinking...
> when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as
> the next person...
> as the joke sails over my head!

I do /sometimes/ say serious things, but more online than in RL.
Most people say I have no sense of humor and some say I have
almost one - I prefer to think they're just to stupid to keep
up. But when someone puts ME on, I am like the proverbial
helpless chile.

<SNIP>

> OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy
> support. It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W
> would work... but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and
> found that XP pretty much supported it all.

That was nice of them. I guess they decided to do the "and now
for something completely different" thing with Vista!

> Even though the ISA devices were generally configured
> automatically... The manual configuration process was
> simplified in that only valid combinations of IRQ's and com
> ports (for example) were listed as choices.

I still remember IRQ nightmares. Just for nostalgia's sake (and
because I never read it before, I am reading The Mother of All
Windows Books (3.1 era) and just read about 50 pages on IRQ's.
Well, at least I now understand what they are exactly. I have
lots of opinions, but relatively little actual tech knowledge.

>> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is
>> > the preferable way to go.
>> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It
>> > really is more difficult to corrupt than fat.
>>
>> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it
>> has never happened to me.
>>
>> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
>> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
>> > boot floppy
>>
>> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very
>> hard, sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or
>> all) of your data but you are left with the good feeling
>> that you were using a "superior' fs.
>>
> I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a
> considerably better than average success rate...
> simply because I have a very hard time giving up .

That's an admirable quality. I share it to some extent, less
than in the past. It CAN be a little hard on the nerves.

<SNIP>

> I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it
> "superior" <G>

Aha, you DID get that one!


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.

Karel Capek

philo
Sat Apr 19 04:02:55 PDT 2008



<SNIP>
>
> > OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy
> > support. It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W
> > would work... but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and
> > found that XP pretty much supported it all.
>
> That was nice of them. I guess they decided to do the "and now
> for something completely different" thing with Vista!
>
> > Even though the ISA devices were generally configured
> > automatically... The manual configuration process was
> > simplified in that only valid combinations of IRQ's and com
> > ports (for example) were listed as choices.
>
> I still remember IRQ nightmares. Just for nostalgia's sake (and
> because I never read it before, I am reading The Mother of All
> Windows Books (3.1 era) and just read about 50 pages on IRQ's.
> Well, at least I now understand what they are exactly. I have
> lots of opinions, but relatively little actual tech knowledge.
>
> >> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is
> >> > the preferable way to go.
> >> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It
> >> > really is more difficult to corrupt than fat.
> >>
> >> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it
> >> has never happened to me.
> >>
> >> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
> >> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
> >> > boot floppy
> >>
> >> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very
> >> hard, sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or
> >> all) of your data but you are left with the good feeling
> >> that you were using a "superior' fs.
> >>
> > I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a
> > considerably better than average success rate...
> > simply because I have a very hard time giving up .
>
> That's an admirable quality. I share it to some extent, less
> than in the past. It CAN be a little hard on the nerves.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it
> > "superior" <G>
>
> Aha, you DID get that one!
>
>
Maybe <G>

Oh btw: concerning that "smokers" photo.

I did not reply back as my newsserver had gone down...

I also make similar comments about starting to smoke!

The photo has been on display in my GF's art gallery and has gotten
a number of favorable comments...however she's the one who's actually
selling.
No problem with that