R
Rod Speed
Randella said:PS... FAT16 wasn't released until 1987...
Irrelevant, fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT16.
So unless you know how to code or program FAT12 then I am
sorry your crediblity along with your pride just went out the window...
Its your thats blown up in your face and cover you with black stuff.
You havent even managed to work out even the most basic
stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system.
Good Luck explaining how you used FAT12...
Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT12 either.
Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.
Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.
Pathetic, really.
No one ever said it was.
There is no FAT in the MBR. There is JUST
a partition table and some boot code.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
actually have a clue about the difference between an MBR
and a file system.
Hint for the terminally pig ignorant:
ON A PC WHICH HAS JUST GOT LINUX INSTALLED ON IT,
THERE WILL BE AN MBR, BECAUSE THE BIOS NEES THAT
TO BOOT THE OS. THERE WONT BE ANY FAT ANYWHERE,
BECAUSE THE LINUX FILE SYSTEMS ARENT FAT BASED.
NEITHER IS NTFS.
Everyone has done that in spaces.
Been there, done that, with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBR
It is indeed.
Because that is a limitation of the MBR and that
has absolutely NOTHING to do with FAT at all.
Yes, but NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY FAT
BECAUSE THERE AINT NO FAT IN THE MBR.
On the PC, unix has precisely the same limit with the MBR.
Wrong again with the linux support for NTFS.
Nope, they know already, someone outside MS wrote it.
Pathetic, really.
And made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself when you did.
Irrelevant to whether defragging is essential.
DOESNT MEAN THAT ITS ESSENTIAL TO DO THAT.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
Another lie. 2000 server aint current.
Same place as yours, wikipedia.