Messages in this thread |  | | From | Robin Becker <> | Subject | Re: Microsoft FAT 32. | Date | Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:48:32 +0100 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.3.93.960802191626.15072A-100000@canuck.gen.nz>, "J. Sean Connell" <ankh@canuck.gen.nz> writes >On 31 Jul 1996, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Could someone clue me in. The name at least sounds like marketing hype. >> There have been 32 bit fats since about 32Mb hardrives where 16 bit >> fats were too small. Is microsoft _really_ producing another file >> system, or did they just decide to hype something, with a new name, >> _again!_ ?????????? >> >> Eric > >The original FAT actually used *12*-bit cluster numbers, packing two >entries into three bytes. When hard drives actually started to get >practical (around DOS 2.0 or so), they bumped it up to 16 bits (one entry >in two bytes). When they relaxed the 32MB limit, all they did was permit >clusters to be bigger, they did not increase the number of bits used to >hold a cluster. > >*betrays his origins as a DOS user* > >(well, hell, I was a DOSite for some 8 years before I first discovered >UNIX, and I've only been a serious Linux dude since early March; and now, >when I go to use DOS on my boyfriend's machine for whatever reason, I >can't remember how to do things... :) > >Personally, I think Microsoft is flogging a dead horse by adding features >into an archaic filesystem that should've been there from the beginning. > >-- >J. Sean Connell Systems Software Architect, ICONZ >ankh@canuck.gen.nz "Oh life is a glorious cycle of song, >ankh@iconz.co.nz a medley of extemporanea, >#include <stddisc.h> And love is a thing that can never go wrong... > And I'm Queen Marie of Romania." >I *hate* Sun Type 4 kbs! --Dorothy Parker > > Agreed! When Gates got it wrong (he couldn't hack unix) he got it wrong real big. All the shuffling around is a way of hiding the fact that he's moving towards joining the stuff he can't beat or suppress. -- Robin Becker
|  |