Is this statement correct? Fat 32 compatability

[yankees230230]

Hey I am taking the OS part of my a+ test soon, already did the hardware and I came across this question...

Which of the following is NOT true about FAT32?

A) FAT32 stores two copies of the boot sector.
B) Compared to FAT16, FAT32 has a reduced cluster size.
C) FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.
D) FAT32 has no limit on the number of root directory entries.

Now it says the correct answer is

C) FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.

Now this means that FAT32 IS compatible with all DOS and Windows application. I always made the assumtion that you couldn't run say Windows 95 OSR 1 on a FAT32 file system, just FAT16. Where did I go wrong and would someone mind explaining? Thanks!

 

[n0cmonkey]

It depends on what they mean by application. If the OS has support for the filesystem, then it shouldn't affect most applications. They obviously don't consider the OS to be an application (which I agree with).

 

[daveshel]

DOS utilities like scandisk or defrag that were designed before FAT32 wouldn't work, but I'm pretty sure you could install DOS on FAT32.

And of course newer Windows programs could require NTFS.

 

[yankees230230]

hmm sounds like they worded the question pretty crappy..

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: yankees230230

C) FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.

Now this means that FAT32 IS compatible with all DOS and Windows application.

No it doesn't. It means what it said. FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and
Windows applications. In other words, some DOS and Windows applications will not run
on FAT32. Any older utilities or programs that have to deal with specific parts of the file-
system will probably have trouble working with FAT32 unless there is a patch to add that
functionality. Most programs will have little trouble as long as the OS can handle
file management in the background.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
No it doesn't. It means what it said. FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.

No, it doesn't mean that. The question asks which is not true, so it's a double negative - it is not true that FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications. Which is logically equivalent to "FAT32 is compatible with all DOS/Windows applications."

Now, people can argue with some justification that certain utilities that directly access disks and filesystems won't work without explicit FAT32 support. Which is true. But the intent of the question appears to be about applications in the sense of things like Word or games - which, as others have stated, don't care in the least about what filesystem they're using as long the OS handles it for them.

Nice example of why these tests are considered to be such a crock. Besides the fact the question is almost intentionally confusing, it's wasting time talking about FAT16 vs. FAT32? What freaking century are the test-writers living in?

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle

Originally posted by: CQuinn
No it doesn't. It means what it said. FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.

No, it doesn't mean that. The question asks which is not true, so it's a double negative -

Nice try, where is the second negative in the sentence? There would have to be two within an individual sentence for
it to be considered as a double negative.

it is not true that FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications. Which is logically equivalent to "FAT32 is compatible with all DOS/Windows applications."

The flaw in your logic is that you should not combine the sentences to come up with an answer; you should process each for logical
constructs seperately.

"Which of the following is NOT true about FAT32? " = "Which of the following is FALSE about FAT32? "

And then examine each of the four statements to determine which is false. Or barring that, determine which three are
more definitively true, and thus eliminate them from selection.

Now, people can argue with some justification that certain utilities that directly access disks and filesystems won't work without explicit FAT32 support. Which is true. But the intent of the question appears to be about applications in the sense of things like Word or games - which, as others have stated, don't care in the least about what filesystem they're using as long the OS handles it for them.

Wrong, the intent of the question is for you to determine which statement is incongrous with the others. It expects you to be
able to think thru the question itself as well as identifying the answer.

Nice example of why these tests are considered to be such a crock. Besides the fact the question is almost intentionally confusing, it's wasting time talking about FAT16 vs. FAT32? What freaking century are the test-writers living in?

The only crock is people who think technical expertise trumps actually understanding the nature of the problem at hand.
There are still a lot of systems out there running on P5-120s with 64MBs of EDO ram, running an install of Win98 that was
an upgrade from the original DOS 5.0 / Windows 3.1 setup. Something that an A+ Tech might actually be expected to
deal with at some point in their career.

 

[cleverhandle]

Fine, let's spell out the logic...

Statement C: FAT32 is not compatible with all DOS and Windows applications.

...is logically equivalent to...

Statement C': There exists at least one application which is not compatible with FAT32.

Now, the question asks which statement is false. And the answer, according to the book, is C. So what does it mean to negate statement C (or, equivalently, to negate C')?

Again, C': There exists at least one application which is not compatible with FAT32.

Negated, ~C': There does not exist even one application which is not compatible with FAT32.

...which is equivalent to...

There are no applications which is are not compatible with FAT32.

...equivalent to...

All applications are compatible with FAT32.


Go ahead and check it out with a logic prof before you post another smarmy reply. Better yet, think through the meaning of the language and convince yourself that that's actually what the words mean.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle

Go ahead and check it out with a logic prof before you post another smarmy reply. Better yet, think through the meaning of the language and convince yourself that that's actually what the words mean.

:thumbsup:

 

[SilentRunning]

Okay I'll take a stab at it:

A) FAT32 stores two copies of the boot sector

FAT32 stores only one copy of the boot sector in addition to the actual boot sector.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: SilentRunning
Okay I'll take a stab at it:

A) FAT32 stores two copies of the boot sector

FAT32 stores only one copy of the boot sector in addition to the actual boot sector.

I noticed that too. However, it stores the boot sector and a copy of the boot sector. So, in effect, that's two copies of a boot sector that are stored on said filesystem. It's just that only one can really, technically, be called a copy.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Dopefiend

Originally posted by: SilentRunning
Okay I'll take a stab at it:

A) FAT32 stores two copies of the boot sector

FAT32 stores only one copy of the boot sector in addition to the actual boot sector.

I noticed that too. However, it stores the boot sector and a copy of the boot sector. So, in effect, that's two copies of a boot sector that are stored on said filesystem. It's just that only one can really, technically, be called a copy.

NTFS stores a 2nd copy of the boot sector in the last sector of the partition. Where does FAT32 store the 2nd copy?