> Gordon Williams wrote:
>
> >Thanks Brent,  that wiped the mmc clean with all zeros.  I was
> then able to
> >reformat it using W2K.
> >
> >The size of the FAT decreased from 16 to 12 sectors, number of
> sectors per
> >track and number of heads are also different than what the card
> came with.
> >
> >Anyone know if this is important?
> >
> >
>
> Isn't that the old FAT12 (floppy drive) format vs FAT16?
> David...

        I don't believe so, FAT12 is not supposed to be supported for a volume that
big. I believe the op is referring to the size of the FAT in sectors. It
sounds like he's using a larger cluster size, which results in a smaller
number of FAT sectors. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body