From: jimd@panix2.panix.com   
      
   Hi;   
      
   I have an opinion, and it seems to match. My partitions are 525 meg, so my   
   cluster size is something bigger than 1024 bytes. So, if calculating bytes   
   used or space used, I need probably 16K clusters.   
      
   On the other hand, I move what files will move by Kobold by Kobold, and   
   that moves files by actual bytes, to another partition of 16K clusters.   
      
   Anyway, the tradition from MS-DOS (which was CP/M with a relocating   
   loader) no longer is relevant.   
      
   I like your idea.   
      
   Jim   
      
      
   Djordje Vukovic  writes:   
      
      
      
   : Hi;   
      
   : When displaying the contents of a directory, or information   
   : about a selection of files to be e.g. copied (in a desktop program   
   : or in a file copy program), it is usual to display the total count   
   : of "bytes used" in the selection. This number is (almost always?)   
   : obtained by summing the "useful" bytes of all relevant files, which   
   : can results in numbers of a magnitude of several billions that appear   
   : to be accurate down to the last byte.   
      
   : It might be argued that this is not always the best approach,   
   : because each file actually occupies an integer number of clusters   
   : on the disk, and a cluster can have a size of several kilobytes.   
   : The count of used clusters, multiplied by cluster size in KB, may   
   : actually give a more meaningful and easier-readable information about   
   : the really occupied space on the disk. It would be a more accurate   
   : measure of the effort required to perform a copy (or other similar)   
   : opeation and enable easier estimate of wheter free space on the target   
   : location is sufficient. Beside that, it would in a simple way avoid   
   : the problem of overflowing the 2 GB or 4 GB limit for total byte count   
   : that appears when using simple 32-bit integer arithmetic.   
      
   : On the down side, this approach would be contrary to the "tradition"   
   : originating from MS-DOS (or CP/M ?) o displaying the sum of "useful"   
   : bytes.   
      
   : It may be noted that, on large disk volumes with large cluster sizes   
   : the difference between summation of "useful" bytes and calculation   
   : based on summation of used clusters can be significant.   
      
   : The proposition therefore is that, when a desktop program displays   
   : information about  "bytes used" in a directory or "bytes to be copied",   
   : the used clusters are to be counted and summary information is expressed   
   : in kilobytes (except in very rare cases, cluster sizes appear always to   
   : be at least 1KB). Individual file sizes would still be displayed as   
   : "useful byte" counts.   
      
   : Any opinions?   
      
   : cu;   
      
   :   
      
   --   
   --   
    /"\      Jim DeClercq--jimd@panix.com--Sylvania, Ohio, USA   
    \ /      ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!       |   
     X       against HTML mail     | Copy me into your ~/.signature|   
    / \      and postings          | to help me spread!            |   
   .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)