Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Apr 2010 09:52 UTC
Windows We already know quite a lot about Windows Phone 7, but there's also a boatload of stuff we do not yet know. Dutch (oh yeah) technology news website managed to get hold of a number of confidential internal Microsoft documents [Dutch] regarding Windows Phone 7, and they contain some intriguing stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 419868
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Radio
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Apr 2010 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Radio"
Member since:

It's not exFAT - it's actually texFAT, where the "t" stands for transactional.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Tuishimi on Tue 20th Apr 2010 15:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Tuishimi Member since:

Did you just go type that into Wikipedia, Thom? ;)

Kidding of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Laurence on Tue 20th Apr 2010 16:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Laurence Member since:

Fair though but still, isn't it about time MS put FAT to bed already.
Even with the additional transaction features (which don't even apply to files copied from Windows, as the Wikipedia article suggests: ), texFAT is still behind many other file systems optimised and/or created specifically with this kind of media in mind.

When so many advances have been made to portable devices and storage solutions over the many years - it's such a shame to see that we're still crippling our hardware with a 30+ year old file system.

I mean, if backwards compatibility was really that big of an issue (heaven forbid you include a file system driver CD with the phone instead of that woeful ActiveSync crapware) then why not push "pocketNTFS" (or whatever) with Win7 installs and XP/Vista service packs.

Sometimes I really do think Microsoft have a deep-seated phobia with pushing new technology and decommissioning the old.

Sorry for the rant, but I really do wish FAT would die already.

Edited 2010-04-20 16:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by Elv13 on Tue 20th Apr 2010 19:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
Elv13 Member since:

On top of that, FAT is not really a good fit for SSD and Flash memory, it does not do any aging block relocation or moving "static in time" files to the most used blocks, so they can rest for a while.

By the way, just to put my original comment in context, the original file system was TextFAT, the article was edited.

Edited 2010-04-20 19:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by boldingd on Tue 20th Apr 2010 22:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
boldingd Member since:

Well, I would say that "crippled" is a bit of an over-statement. It's not like FAT partitions slowly erode the boundary between this world and the Warp by their very existence. I'd be pretty surprised if, say, either the I/O rates or the file-system longevity was more than ten-percent difference between texFAT and a file-system specifically designed for flash media.

And I've had enough fun trying to share volumes (either hard-disk partitions, USB drives or stand-alone devices that mount as hard-drives) between Linux and Windows, without having to worry about handling some new, obscure, MS-authored and not-well-supported-in-Linux file-system thrown into the mix.

Reply Parent Score: 2