Originally posted by: drag
Those days had crappy file systems, too. And they were crap back then, but you didn't have a choice. Now you do.
Remember back in the day when people would talk about "bit rot" and how operating systems would get gradually worse and worse, more and more unstable until files started corrupting and defrag utilities would freeze up?
Interesting that you should bring that up,
drag, since as a matter of actual
fact, FAT32 does not suffer from any such sort of condition that will render the system unbootable due to continued filesystem usage. (Other than performance slowdown.) NTFS, on the other hand, does. Severe cases of MFT fragmentation, can actually cause the system to not boot. IOW, NTFS can literally "paint itself into a corner". Just another way in which FAT32 is superior in its simplicity, lacking corner-cases that can lead to system failure.
Originally posted by: drag
Well "bit rot" doesn't exist. What it realy was, was in fact called "Fat32 sucks".
"Bit-rot" is real, and basically refers to data-corruption that is introduced, due to hardware failure, memory failure/instability, and essentially increases in entropy. In theory, it should never happen, but in the real world, it does.
Also, if NTFS suffers from a failure, MS recommends restoring from a backup, because they can't guarantee the integrity of user data stored in files after an "improper shutdown event".
Originally posted by: drag
Anyways, the reason NTFS filesystems are a pain compatibility wise is because Microsoft doesn't want it compatable. They simply dont' want to make it conveinent for people to use anything other then their stuff. It's how it is with almost everything they do.
That I'll heartily agree with. It's called "vendor lock-in". If they've got
your data, locked away in
their proprietary file formats and filesystems, then they can effectively hold you for "upgrade and interoperability ransom", in order for you to continue to access and share your data. It's how they make their money, and just one way how they enforce their NT OS (NTFS) and Office application suite (Office file formats) monopolies.
Originally posted by: drag
Anyways Fat32 is adiquate for this purpose unless you do multimedia stuff. The file size limit is a kick in the pants for mpeg2 (DVD, DV, rip TV shows with mpeg2-enabled TV card, etc) stuff.
Yep, that's pretty-much the singular greatest limitation with FAT32 - file sizes. If that could be fixed, FAT32 would be viable (although, certainly not 'desirable') for another ten years. Some apps (newest DVDShrink, for example) support application-based splitting of files into 2GB chunks. A reasonable idea, although not the best solution.
Btw, in all of my pro-FAT32 commentary, I'm not saying that it is the greatest thing ever; quite frankly, it
does suck, but IMO it simply sucks
less than the more-proprietary alternative, in many ways.
To make an analogy - consider vehicles, one made years ago, with a fairly simplistic design, mechnical throttle, carburator, etc. Now consider a more modern vehicle, where everything is computerized, there is nothing that you can easily work on, and instead have to take it to a shop and pay them $200 just to take a look at what's wrong, via some mfg-proprietary tool that reads the ECU codes. Which would you rather work on? Sure, the "old-fashioned" engine may not be as super-efficient with the gas mileage, as a computer-controlled one that can adjust the fuel-air mixture dynamically 100s of times a second, but if something *does* break, you can fix it easily, and diagnose it easily. Whereas, if the ECU-based car breaks - you have no choice but to bring it to the dealer/mechanic, becuase the vehicle mfg refuses to provide any information at all about how to diagnose and repair them. If they catch anyone doing so on their own, then they sue them.
FAT32 is like an old carburated car. NTFS is like some sleek new vehicle, with all of the latest computer-contolled bells and whistles, but you cannot access/fix it easily, in the case that something breaks.
(I suppose, to make the analogy complete - a "Mac car" would have the engine compartment welded shut completely, with two indicator lights on the dash, one with a green happy-face, and one with a red unhappy-face. OS X would be a car based on a heavy-duty humvee chassis/frame, with a sleek ferrari-like minivan-sized body, and would cost more than both combined. )