Timeline for answer to Why can FAT16 not store more than 2 GB? by Peter Green
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2018 at 20:08 | audit | First posts | |||
| May 25, 2018 at 20:10 | |||||
| May 1, 2018 at 13:04 | comment | added | Ralf Kleberhoff | @DanielWagner I absolutely agree. Especially as back then when FAT16 was created, shifting was definitely a cheaper operation than multiplying. But probably they were just happy to get it running, and not software-engineering it for decades into the future... | |
| May 1, 2018 at 12:27 | comment | added | Daniel Wagner | @RalfKleberhoff That does naturally lead to a followup question, though: if you're storing a power of two, why store the number itself rather than the exponent on the two? | |
| May 1, 2018 at 10:28 | comment | added | Ralf Kleberhoff | I had to think hard at the "maximum possible sectors per cluster is 64", until I got it: 64 is indeed the largest power-of-2 you can represent in a signed byte: 128 isn't possible as the maximum positive signed byte value is 127. | |
| Apr 30, 2018 at 18:31 | history | edited | Peter Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 490 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2018 at 16:54 | history | answered | Peter Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |