2006 mid-year link clearance

A few random links that I've collected.

Comments (8)
  1. Rhomboid says:

    The slashbuster videos were great.  I especially liked the house demolition one that was squirreled away in the last slot on the second page of videos.

  2. Suyi says:

    rofl @ lardbutt! :D

  3. Gabe says:

    Yes, the Slashbuster videos are possibly the coolest thing I’ve seen all week. Not only will it let you take a top-down approach to mulching trees, it lets you take a bottom-up approach to mulching small houses. The coolest thing, though, it probably the video where it mulches a minivan!

    Also, I’m sort of curious what date that was which you put on the FAT32 design notebook?

    I remember back when Win95 was released a friend of mine who worked on it said that they were working on a 32-bit version of FAT for larger disks. Being an NT guy I just shuddered at what a horrible idea I thought that was. Now I am thankful that you guys went through with that, so flash memory card devices don’t fall off a cliff at 2GB and have to start partitioning large flash cards or having every digital camera/audio player have its own proprietary and incompatible filesystem.

  4. Manip says:

    That fat32 history article is almost unreadable because Microsoft have placed flashy adverts on each side to draw your eyes attention away from what you’re reading…

  5. CN says:

    Wow, Flogsta-vrålet entering Raymond’s blog. Maybe I should decide to take part in it someday, after all.

    (as I live in Uppsala)

  6. Tom says:

    From the FAT32 article

    At some point you have to say, "Enough is enough." After considerable discussion, 32GB was decided upon as the arbitrary cutoff point. Windows 2000 and higher offer only NTFS when formatting larger drives. Note, however, that Windows 2000 and higher will use a FAT32 drive larger than 32GB; they simply won’t create one. (For a 32GB FAT32 drive, it takes 4 megabytes of disk I/O to compute the amount of free space.)

    That seems a bit pessimistic. The FSInfo sector (http://www.x-ways.net/winhex/templates/FSINFO_Sector.txt) has a free cluster count, so if that’s set you can skip reading the FAT. If not, you need to read it once, but after that you can keep the count in ram, and write it back to FSInfo when you unmount. From my tests, reading both FATs on a 250GB SATA drive should take less than one second. Which is not too bad, given that you only need to do it once per mount.

    And allocating clusters should be fast if you keep the "next free cluster" in Ram too, and the FSInfo sector has a slot for that when you mount/unmount. Sure FAT32 is a bit clunky, but it’s incredibly widely supported. There’s a demand for FAT32 support for volumes >32GB. I wrote a little freeware app to do it.


    I get 2-3 emails a day thanking me, and wondering why Windows won’t let you do it.

    And I’ve used huge (300GB) FAT32 USB volumes with Windows, Norton Dos, MacOs and Linux, and none of them seem to have any performance issues. And most embedded stuff can only read and write FATxx.

  7. Marcel says:

    Curse you for introducing me to Waiterrant. I’ve been reading it for hours now and cannot stop.

  8. Norman Diamond says:

    Thank you for understanding why Windows 95 users would create multiple logical drives on a physical external drive (i.e. it wasn’t a frivolous thing to do and wasn’t originally intended to become a bug hunt).

    > this results in a theoretical maximum FAT32

    > volume size of 2TB. […] Long before you hit

    > the theoretical maximum volume size, you will

    > reach the practical limits.

    At the time FAT32 was developed, that was true.  But you seem to be stating this as a current fact in a publication dated 2006.  I think it was 2004 when I saw a report of Linux misbehaving on a partition of size greater than 8TB.  If I wished to spend as much money today as I did for my first personally owned PC, I could probably make an 8TB partition myself too, using an external RAID controller that would present itself as a single SCSI interface.

    > At some point you have to say, "Enough is

    > enough."

    Except in Windows 95B and 98, where the limit is still 2TB, except that the limit is really 32GB or 64GB for reasons other than those stated.  For Windows 98 Microsoft announced and then retracted a patch that would survive past 64GB, but for 95 (all versions) the 32GB limit on total media size remains constraining.

Comments are closed.