Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:02:46 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Pieter van Ginkel <pginkel AT westbrabant DOT net>
cc: Delorie <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Fat system
In-Reply-To: <003201bdd633$ec1f6ac0$44e7acc1@foxe>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980902110206.517R-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Pieter van Ginkel wrote:

> A question. If you had to choose a fat system for a new Os, and you could
> choose from a set (listed below), what one would you choose, why that one
> and why not a other one.

At a risk of triggering a religious war, I'll dare to submit that it
almost doesn't matter, not if your concern is performance.  I/O
performance mostly depends on how low-level I/O primitives are
implemented, its dependance on the physical layout of the disk is
marginal.  As one data point, consider this: many Windows/NT
installations, at least around me, ship with their system disk
formatted as FAT, not NTFS.

IMHO, you should make your choice based on how wide-spread a given
filesystem is.  That would make your OS be easy to install and run on
most machines out there.