Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Sep 2012 21:45 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Microsoft and RIM have announced that RIM has licensed Redmond's exFAT patents. The press release contains a ridiculous amount of hyperbole nonsense, and if you translate it into regular people speak, it basically comes down to RIM paying Microsoft protection money for stupid nonsensical software patents. Ridiculous articles like like this make it seem as if we're talking about patents on major technological breakthroughs, but don't be fooled: this is because for some inexplicable reason, we're using crappy FAT for SD cards.
Thread beginning with comment 535780
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Metadata
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 20th Sep 2012 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Metadata"
Member since:

If the Xbox 360 does in fact *not* actually use a modified version of the NT kernel, that is still no excuse for using FAT when NTFS was already well on its way to becoming the PC standard if it wasn't already--and default (due to Windows XP)--well before the time of the system's release.

I briefly read the page linked from the Wikipedia article you pointed out, and honestly... the way it was written (vaguely), I'm not so sure it's talking about the *kernel* as much as it's referring to the complete *operating system* that the machine runs. I would have to guess it's talking about the whole deal. Duh, obviously it doesn't run a complete Windows OS--I wasn't implying that at all. But I seriously doubt that Microsoft built a brand-new kernel 100% from scratch, and surely they didn't take much if anything from the DOS kernel when they've got NT and would be better off rewriting parts that are not already in it.

That blog entry doesn't really make it clear (to be fair, I just kind of skimmed through it), but it sounds to me like they're talking about the system as a whole... I see no mention specifically of the kernel, which I still would assume is NT-based. It does mention that the OS was built from the "ground up," but if I wanted to bad enough I could build an OS from the ground up based on the Linux kernel. It might share the userland and have the same kernel as the rest, but hey... it'd be built from the ground up.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Metadata
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Sep 2012 09:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Metadata"
lucas_maximus Member since:

You said it ran a cut down version of NT or something along those lines, I can't be arsed quoting from up the comment pyramid.

I just corrected you.

The target demographic of the Xbox 360 don't really care about the underlying file-system. FAT is good enough for playing some MP3 and some Movies.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Metadata
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 21st Sep 2012 00:17 in reply to "RE[6]: Metadata"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Thanks for the "correction" if it really is one, but like I said, the blog entry that Wikipedia references doesn't seem to prove my original point. I believe my original quote that you were referring to was:

There is no reason for a Linux-based device to enforce the use of such an old non-native DOS file system, and it's crazy that a piece of Microsoft hardware running a modified Windows NT kernel (the Xbox 360) requires FAT32 and will not operate with NTFS.

As you pointed out, the Wikipedia article you linked to claims that the Xbox 360 does not use a modified NT kernel, but I'm not so sure that I believe it without proof to back it up. The "proof" the Wikipedia article has is the following reference in the form of a blog entry on MSDN, which is what I was referring to in my previous reply:

That's inconclusive at best. I don't see anything specifically about the kernel itself and its design. I like Wikipedia, but this just seems like one of its weak points, and this seems to be a good example of it.

Edited 2012-09-21 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1