To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Because many people do extract their SD card from their camera or mobile phone and insert it into their laptops.
Try to do that with ext3 and you've got yourself into three problems:
- Not supported out-of-the box on Mac and Windows
- Even after installing a driver, the support is not that good. Unless you go for a commercial implementation, such as Paragon's, and that means royalties. And if you are going to pay royalties, well, wtf, pay them to Microsoft and get FAT, which does not neeed a driver!
- Some people will try the SD card on a computer where the driver is not installed, they will receive the infamous "unknown partition" message and bitch about having lost all their data
So essentially going for FAT or anything which is supported out of the box by Windows and works acceptably well is the best business decision. Props if it also works out of the box and reasonably well on Mac. Linux? No need to care about them.
How about one of the filing systems supported by OSX, like UFS? It is a powerful filing system, with source code available under a BSD license, and compatible out of the box with Macs. It would get along fine with the Linux and iOS kernels that make up 95% of the smartphone market, and a huge slice of the HD-Tv market, the set-top box market and the embedded market in general.
Only Microsoft would be left out, but they have already stated that the BSD license is palatable to them, and if this were official they might could keep face by adopting a "multimedia standard"






Member since:
2012-01-13
Most SD-cards never get exchanged between devices. So, why doesn't RIM simply choose a good an affordable (read: free) file system? ext3, etx4, reiser, jfs....
Why choose exFAT, which is a)worse and b)more expensive?
I mean, Microsoft isn't exactly known for state of the art filesystems, or did I miss something?