Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 16:17 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux The FAT file system is the file system used by MS-DOS and earlier versions of Windows. It's a relatively simple and straightforward file system, supported by just about any operating system, making it the favoured file system on memory cards and the like. FAT is an ECMA and ISO standard, but these only apply for FAT12 and FAT16 without support for long file names, and therein lies a problem.
Permalink for comment 371477
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: future proof?
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 03:58 UTC in reply to "future proof?"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

so what happens when all the memory makers go to exFAT in 2 years? then again even snow leapord wont suport exFAT so who knows.


Good question, although many devices support dual PTP and USB Storage modes so if they don't support exFAT, there is always alternates. I wonder if there is a move to exFAT and demand increases whether Apple is willing to sign agreement or whether the existing agreement with Microsoft covers such technologies.

For Microsoft I have a feeling that they're more concerned about getting money than whether or not a particular operating system uses it. If There is a requirement to pay for licence then it helps Microsoft in the long run. It helps them by raising the required sales price to cover the licence.

Lets say that Red Hat bites the bullet and says, "we need to create a Linux desktop with all the trimmings for customers". Part of that would involve licencing a huge swag of technologies off Microsoft. By the time Red Hat got through with licencing all the technologies required for a fully feature desktop operating system it would probably add another $30-$40 onto their operating system. Couple that with the need to recoup the intial investment for the product and it would probably raise Linux to the same price range as Windows thus killing off any possible intial cost argument relating to Red Hat being lower cost than Windows.

So I don't think it is as simple as Microsoft trying to tie the hands of Linux distributors when it has more to do with raising the cost of Linux to meet the same price as Windows. Then from there it is easier to argue that, "both are the same price, but ours is superior compared to right now where vendors can always fall back on the "but we're cheaper" argument.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2