Microsoft Tries To Patent Fat 32
the_x5
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">and collect royalties</div> HAHAHA-- No. I don't think so. Nice try microsoft. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-slashdot.org+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (slashdot.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It's being reported other places as well but, there's a very nice <a href='http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040930074317160' target='_blank'>story over at Groklaw</a> about efforts by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) to get <a href='http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm' target='_blank'>Microsoft's patent on FAT restricted or revoked.</a> Bearing in mind that Microsoft still has right of appeal, The USPTO has rejected Microsofts FAT patent." <a href='http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/04/16/0158232.shtml?tid=155' target='_blank'>Our earlier story</a> reported on efforts to overturn this patent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also: "the Patent office rejected Bill Gate's request to patent fire and the wheel." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~edit~ blah typos
<!--QuoteBegin-slashdot.org+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (slashdot.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It's being reported other places as well but, there's a very nice <a href='http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040930074317160' target='_blank'>story over at Groklaw</a> about efforts by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) to get <a href='http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm' target='_blank'>Microsoft's patent on FAT restricted or revoked.</a> Bearing in mind that Microsoft still has right of appeal, The USPTO has rejected Microsofts FAT patent." <a href='http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/04/16/0158232.shtml?tid=155' target='_blank'>Our earlier story</a> reported on efforts to overturn this patent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also: "the Patent office rejected Bill Gate's request to patent fire and the wheel." <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~edit~ blah typos
Comments
if the patent had held up, microsoft wouldve had a stranglehold on every digital storage device in the country.
if the patent had held up, microsoft wouldve had a stranglehold on every digital storage device in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What (s)he said. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Regardless I think base level knowledge like this should be the property of no one.
~edit~
Actually didn't Microsoft buy DOS, sell it to IBM, and then steal stuff from Apple that they stole from Xerox?
I'm confused isnt the NTFS system better anyways?
I'm confused isnt the NTFS system better anyways? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm sorta, it's different. Google it.
FAT 32 is more commonly used tho.
I'm confused isnt the NTFS system better anyways? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The NTFS system is better for single-boot computers and computers with HDs larger than 32 Gigs. FAT 32 is better for multi-boot and smaller systems.
also NTFS is newer, and is more efficient.
In NTFS the data is stored in one part.
That is the main difference. Of course this not everything. But anything more I don't remember right now.
Same thing with if the disk starts to fail... FAT32 will be more likely to survive the failure, at least long enough to extract data. NTFS, you're pretty well screwed, if you're a consumer.
Hrm. Could explain the problems I've been having though, tossing a series of NTFS and FAT32 partitions on one disk, interleaved. :b Along with a couple of ext3, for good measure.
also NTFS is newer, and is more efficient. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
EeeeeeW! You use WinME?!
Oh man I feel sorry for you... Install Win2000, MAC OS/X, or Linux. Seriously. I used to have crashes daily with ME but now that I have Win2k I have been introduced to a new phase: recovery, I've never has something I couldn't recover from.
And by the way FAT32 is almost like "default" file system structure. If you use bits to directly address to memory, that's what you'd have. FAT32! NTFS consumes more memory and is a little faster for the shortcuts it uses. FAT32 is as basic as you can get. Microsoft might get away with patenting NTFS, but not FAT32.
It's like patenting 2 + 2 = 4. Maybe you discovered it, but it was already there to begin with.
And to correct you guys, FAT32 holds 32 bits worth or 2^32 addresses. This amounts to 4 GB.
also NTFS is newer, and is more efficient. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EeeeeeW! You use WinME?!
Oh man I feel sorry for you... Install Win2000, MAC OS/X, or Linux. Seriously. I used to have crashes daily with ME but now that I have Win2k I have been introduced to a new phase: recovery, I've never has something I couldn't recover from. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you think thats bad?
try searching ot for "where have I been" and my member name
try searching ot for "where have I been" and my member name <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I just keep getting this thread back...
thats only true if each address held one byte, in reality we use 32k clusters, and address 4 billion of them, allowing for 127 gigabyte drives.
i dont like ntfs because only half of data recovery softwares can read it. when i need to rebuild someone's boot record cuz the harddrive is choking to death, its a dozen times easier if it was FAT.
Fat is more efficient for smaller drives and low use drives, it is perfect for things like i-pods and usb drives. NTFS is more efficient for drives that get a lot of use, or are larger than about 40 GB, its made to run a windows isntallation (obviously)
It's true. I've seen it done with my own eyes. (it does destroy the hard drive tho)