gerard at seibercom.net
Fri Aug 29 22:26:42 UTC 2008
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:44:20 +1000 (EST)
Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:33:35 +0200 (CEST)
> Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> > CP/M was single-user and was used on floppies up to 360kB AFAIK,
> And MP/M was multi-user, using the same filesystem. From memory,
> there was perhaps one byte that indicated which user owned a file :)
> > NTFS is a theft of OS/2 HPFS. they didn't even bothered to use
> > other partition ID :), but they managed to f..k^H^H^H^Hextend it's
> > functionality, so it's actually even slower than FAT, and too -
> > does nothing to prevent fragmentation.
> It wasn't (straight-up) theft; MS cut a deal with IBM to use HPFS and
> OS/2, more or less in exchange for letting IBM licence Windows 3.1 as
> When things went sour - google provides days of happy reading if
> you're interested - MS morphed it into NTFS for NT, cruelled the deal
> with IBM so OS/2 couldn't run NT/Win95 apps (signing OS/2's death
> warrant, though it took a long time to die) and stopped distributing
> OS/2 themselves.
It might be worth mentioning that things deteriorated swiftly when IBM
insisted that Microsoft, who was writing OS/2 for IBM, write the code
specifically for the 286 processor. Bill Gates personally invaded the
Armonk IBM headquarters and basically told the IBM execs that they were
making a colossal mistake. When IBM refused to back down, Gates gave
them what they wanted. The rest is history. IBM signed their own 'death
warrant'. Remember, Gates once offered to sell DOS to IBM for $10,000
dollars, and IBM turned him down.
> > This is normal, as Microsoft make a problems to be able to "fix"
> > it (creating 3 times more others) in new releases, so idiots
> > continue to buy new versions of windoze and new hardware, just to
> > do as simple task as writing a few-paged document or view a webpage
First of all , I would be careful who I called an idiot. Secondly, you
obviously have no business knowledge. Products, whether they are cars,
drugs, etc. are improved and reissued to the general public. That is
just the name of the game.
> Yeah, yeah :) I'd be surprised if NTFS isn't as defrag-proof as
> HPFS, which as I recall had self-defragging garbage-collecting
> features built in; certainly I never felt the need to defrag any HPFS
> volumes, and I used it for quite a few years to run BBS and Fidonet
> stuff, not once losing any data .. HPFS was a very resiliant and
> reliable filesystem.
> If you compare:
> % find /usr/src -name "*hpfs*
> % find /usr/src -name "*ntfs*
> you'll go 'hmmm ..' and if you look through the sources you'll see
> whole large slabs of code that are shared between those two
> implementations, by the same author.
> I've never tried writing to HPFS volumes, but I did recover many
> years of work and play from a number of HPFS disks and still hope to
> do some more someday, so I was glad to see the code is still there in
> 7.0 ..
> cheers, Ian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20080829/77be3ec1/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions