If the site comes up with white text on white background it's likely because a persons browser has been set to white on color, or for some other default when a site color scheme isn't specified. I've known three people who preferred it that way, but two of the three were "instutuionalized" and had limited computer access so it didn't matter much to them. The third was a rather antisocial person, so she didn't matter much to me. If you have a vision problem that makes it more appropriate for you to use an unusual setting, you have my sympathy.

And we all know here that highlighting a selection of "invisible text" will make it visible, and even rank amateurs should know that Ctl-A will highlight the whole page and change the colors to reveal all.

The link that was "changed" when a "perfectly legal URL" was posted is rather questionable, since it appears that what was pasted was "support.microsoft.com/kb/314463" which is a perfectly legal local link if you're at the site where that is bookmarked; but since we use a lot of local links here to help people move between threads, it is perfectly appropriate that when you paste a local link or something that looks like one here the site automatically assumes it's a link to a bookmark on this site and supplies the site URL as a leader to simplify copying the link to post it on another site. The result was that the link posted was to http://mudcat.org/support.microsoft.com/kb/314463 which is of course a non-existent location. That IS and SHOULD BE expected site behavior, so far as I'm concerned, although I haven't seen much comment from those it's intended to help.

The reason for not permitting people to edit their own posts has been explained.

The reason that all thread links don't take you immediately to the last post is that many of us here consider it exceedingly RUDE to post irrelevant comments without reading what has preceded in a thread. And even the most illiterate should know that Ctl-End or Ctl-Home will take you immediately to either end in the event you need to go somewhere else. Once a thread has been around long enough to be split up, it is assumed (not always reliably) that only those already familiar with the prior content are likely to add to it, so the "d" sort is not objectionable and is of some convenience for those active in a thread.

I, and most others who've been around her for a while, find the present setup quite satisfactory, and specifically appropriate for the purposes for which the site exists.

And, just for reference, there are at least three other KB articles at Microsoft giving slightly more complete descriptions of both the limits on FAT32 formats and differences (and limits for) the other FAT versions and for NTFS, but they've been moved (or removed) and didn't come up when I did a quick search there. I apologize for being too lazy to find the copies I have saved on my own computer before commenting, but general comments seemed sufficient at that point in the discussion. Your additional information was appropriate and appreciated by the time you entered the discussion.

The one you linked has, FYI, been rewritten since the most recent copy I have on file was up, which is itself a re-write of what appeared when WinXP was new, although I didn't see much significant change in the content of any of them.

John