Re: Fat16 vs fat32 (was Re: [Qemu-devel] Installing a guest WXP on a MacOS X host)

[Laurent Amon]

On 19 juil. 04, at 23:23, Joe Menola wrote:
> Interesting to note that preformance took a serious nose dive, xp ran 
> about
> 50% faster on my fat16 fs????
> I was actually hoping for an increase, think I'll revert back to fat16 
> and
> deal with those problems.
Now that's interesting. I have a W95 at hand and I am currently trying 
to install a W98 EOM image.
Both are on FAT32, but my previous version of W95 (on FAT16) felt 
faster, maybe because of this? I'll try to run some benchmarks.