|
楼主 |
发表于 2009-9-30 19:52:25
|
显示全部楼层
Initial FAT16
In 1984, IBM released the PC AT, which featured a 20 MB hard disk. Microsoft introduced MS-DOS 3.0 in parallel. (The earlier PC XT was the first PC with a hard drive from IBM, and MS-DOS 2.0 supported that hard drive with FAT12.) Cluster addresses were increased to 16-bit, allowing for up to 65,517 clusters per volume, and consequently much greater file system sizes, at least in theory. However, the maximum possible number of sectors and the maximum (partition, rather than disk) size of 32 MB did not change. Therefore, although technically already "FAT16", this format was not what today is commonly understood as FAT16. With the initial implementation of FAT16 not actually providing for larger partition sizes than FAT12, the early benefit of FAT16 was to enable the use of smaller clusters, making disk usage more efficient, particularly for files several hundred bytes in size, which were far more common at the time. Also, the introduction of FAT16 actually did bring an increase in the maximum partition size under MS-DOS, since the implementation of FAT12 for hard disks in MS-DOS 2.0 was limited to 15 MB. (That is, the initial FAT16 did not support larger drives than FAT12, but MS-DOS 3.0 using FAT16 did support larger drives than MS-DOS 2.0 using FAT12, by a factor of two.)[11]
A 20 MB hard disk formatted under MS-DOS 3.0 was not accessible by the older MS-DOS 2.0. (This was because MS-DOS 2.0 did not support version 3.0's FAT-16 and because it did not support hard disk partitions over 15 MB in size.) Of course, MS-DOS 3.0 could still access MS-DOS 2.0 style 8 KB-cluster partitions.
MS-DOS 3.0 also introduced support for high-density 1.2 MB 5.25" diskettes, which notably had 15 sectors per track, hence more space for the FATs. This probably prompted a dubious optimization of the cluster size, which went down from 2 sectors to just 1. The net effect was that high density diskettes were significantly slower than older double density ones. |
|