98 Guy wrote:

My words relate to what you posted, which was the Micro**** KB
article
about FAT having a 16-mb size limitation. That's what I was
responding
to, and because I properly quoted and bottom-posted my response, it
should have been obvious.

My response to mm's problem (where some files cannot be read in Win98,
but are okay in XP) pointed out that some of the plain DOS progs in
Win98 might have some problems with FAT32 on partitions greater than
16 GB.

I said nothing about FAT (which one?) having any limitations,
especially not the 16mb (!) one you inserted. You should learn the
definition of FAT, DOS, Mega- and GigaBytes and probably a few things
more.

Name-slinging and playing nntp-police may be the prerogative of the
mindless young. But I don't have to read this or answer it. So don't
bother to reply, since I won't see it any more.

--
Best Regards,

* Klaus Meinhard *
www.4dos.info