Microsoft Patents FAT

[Warrior]

After initially rejecting Microsoft's File Allocation Table (FAT) patents, the USPTO has ruled them valid. From the article: 'Microsoft has won a debate where they were the only party allowed to speak, in that the patent re-examination process bars the public from rebutting arguments made by Microsoft, said unimpressed Public Patent Foundation President Dan Ravicher.

Source: slashdot

[iago]

What's the implication of this?

[Warrior]

They are appearantly charging per unit to use it.

[rabbit]

But we can just use ext/2/3/ReiserFS or NTFS?  Or damn near one of a billion others?

[Newby]

Hahaha. Who the fuck would use FAT?

[rabbit]

Microsoft...wait...didn't they switch to NTFS?

[Armin]

It's not that they switched, it's just that FAT doesn't work on partitions larger than I think 10GB, so they created NTFS which not only handles larger partitions, but also is more secure or something of the sort. You can still use FAT on any Windows install if you wish.

[Warrior]

It's not that they switched, it's just that FAT doesn't work on partitions larger than I think 10GB, so they created NTFS which not only handles larger partitions, but also is more secure or something of the sort. You can still use FAT on any Windows install if you wish.

Of course it does, however it does come with some draw backs and uses nasty work arounds for long file names. It fragmentates easily and has no recovery from an unexpected shutdown. It has no built in security features it's way out of it's time.

But regardless it's a HIGHLY portable DOCUMENTED and SIMPLE filesystem which many OSes seem to use. Microsoft has already been collecting fees from companies which use FAT on it's hardware.

Also appearantly this only applies for thier "VFAT" which adds the long filename extension (Christ that's an ugly hack)

[Eric]

It's not that they switched, it's just that FAT doesn't work on partitions larger than I think 10GB, so they created NTFS which not only handles larger partitions, but also is more secure or something of the sort. You can still use FAT on any Windows install if you wish.

NTFS was developed for Windows operating systems that were based off the NT kernel which Windows 95/98 did not use and as a side note: FAT32 supports up to 32 GB.

[Warrior]

Correct, based off HPFS (iirc) and it's a phenomenal Filesystem. The only downside is the lack of documentation for it which Microsoft refuses to give out. From the open documentation I've seen however, it's extremely complicated when it comes to it's security measures.

In light of this new patenting a few of us are developing a new Filesystem which will be even simpler than FAT, allow long filenames out of the box, and be extremely easy for anyone to implement into thier OS.

[Eric]

Correct, based off HPFS (iirc) and it's a phenomenal Filesystem. The only downside is the lack of documentation for it which Microsoft refuses to give out. From the open documentation I've seen however, it's extremely complicated when it comes to it's security measures.

It's encryption, compression and user permissions are definately some of it's impressive aspects.

[Armin]

It's not that they switched, it's just that FAT doesn't work on partitions larger than I think 10GB, so they created NTFS which not only handles larger partitions, but also is more secure or something of the sort. You can still use FAT on any Windows install if you wish.

and as a side note: FAT32 supports up to 32 GB.

Mehh, I knew 10GB didn't sound right.

[iago]

NTFS was developed for Windows operating systems that were based off the NT kernel which Windows 95/98 did not use

It's encryption, compression and user permissions are definately some of it's impressive aspects.

Duh.  I should give you the Mr. Obvious award

[Warrior]

But we can just use ext/2/3/ReiserFS or NTFS?  Or damn near one of a billion others?

We CAN but the problem is, except for ext2/3 there are no Windows drivers availible (Talking for other OSes sure it's possible but for small medias it isn't practical, for example who IN THE FUCK would format a FLOPPY with NTFS or ext2?) Even WITH the windows ext2/3 drivers availible, there is no way to naitively install them OR change your current partition to that format.

[MyndFyre]

We CAN but the problem is, except for ext2/3 there are no Windows drivers availible (Talking for other OSes sure it's possible but for small medias it isn't practical, for example who IN THE FUCK would format a FLOPPY with NTFS or ext2?) Even WITH the windows ext2/3 drivers availible, there is no way to naitively install them OR change your current partition to that format.

I've formatted a ZIP100 floppy to NTFS before because I wanted the data security.  However, because of the way security is structured on NTFS, if the data had been encrypted, it would have been impossible to retrieve following a format.

As for ext2/3 - you're right, but I don't think that there's a way to install Linux on NTFS either.    Realistically, you *could* modify Windows to boot from ext2/3 as long as you could modify the portion of the executive and kernel that is started when Windows is first being booted.

[Warrior]

As for ext2/3 - you're right, but I don't think that there's a way to install Linux on NTFS either.    Realistically, you *could* modify Windows to boot from ext2/3 as long as you could modify the portion of the executive and kernel that is started when Windows is first being booted.

I was speaking about natively installing ext2/3 FS and modifying windows to use it would be a *HUGE* tweak including the way windows searches for files and displays them. Windows I don't think is built that flexible to allow you to just plug in which FS the kernel uses and abstracts.

[Joe]

NTFS was developed for Windows operating systems that were based off the NT kernel which Windows 95/98 did not use

It's encryption, compression and user permissions are definately some of it's impressive aspects.

Duh.  I should give you the Mr. Obvious award

Yay, thought I was the only one who noticed.

EDIT -

there is no way to naitively install them

Uh, bootdisk?

[MyndFyre]

I was speaking about natively installing ext2/3 FS and modifying windows to use it would be a *HUGE* tweak including the way windows searches for files and displays them. Windows I don't think is built that flexible to allow you to just plug in which FS the kernel uses and abstracts.

The kernel sees an abstract view of the filesystem through the Installable File System.  That's what allows drivers to operate, such as the ext2/ext3 drivers.

The real trick to it though would be to trick the system into believing that the Ext2/ext3 systems are built-in components.  Maybe someone should reverse-engineer the WinFS setup while it's still in beta and see what changes it makes and how it's registered.  Furthermore, depending on how the driver system is constructed, Explorer might not be able to identify that it's an ext2 drive in Windows Explorer (it might alternatively say "Unknown partition" or something similar).  That depends on whether the driver or the explorer.exe program provides the partition type name string.  I'm almost positive it would be impossible to format a drive to ext2/3 without modifying explorer.exe or providing a new shell (that functionality is built into explorer.exe itself).

I don't think it's THAT different though.  The file system still shares similar structures with Windows, such as folders.  It's just that / would become a root folder for a disk drive.  ntldr would need to be modified to accomodate that.

[Newby]

(back on topic..)

Do you think Microsoft can do anything to Apple for utilizing the FAT filesystem on the iPod? Like, charge per production of unit for supporting FAT?

I think that's hilarious if they can.

[Eric]

(back on topic..)

Do you think Microsoft can do anything to Apple for utilizing the FAT filesystem on the iPod? Like, charge per production of unit for supporting FAT?

I think that's hilarious if they can.

Or all of the other flash drives that exist in mp3 players, portable hard drives, etc?  Or all of the FAT32 formatted removeable media such as floppy disks, zip disks, etc?  Doubtful.

[Nate]

You guys are dreaming. 

iPod sold unformatted-->Plug into PC--->Windows Msg: Would you like to format your iPod in FAT? (some additional charges may apply)

M$ wants money from Apple, Apple isnt going to pay them you are.

[Warrior]

I was speaking about natively installing ext2/3 FS and modifying windows to use it would be a *HUGE* tweak including the way windows searches for files and displays them. Windows I don't think is built that flexible to allow you to just plug in which FS the kernel uses and abstracts.

The kernel sees an abstract view of the filesystem through the Installable File System.  That's what allows drivers to operate, such as the ext2/ext3 drivers.

The real trick to it though would be to trick the system into believing that the Ext2/ext3 systems are built-in components.  Maybe someone should reverse-engineer the WinFS setup while it's still in beta and see what changes it makes and how it's registered.  Furthermore, depending on how the driver system is constructed, Explorer might not be able to identify that it's an ext2 drive in Windows Explorer (it might alternatively say "Unknown partition" or something similar).  That depends on whether the driver or the explorer.exe program provides the partition type name string.  I'm almost positive it would be impossible to format a drive to ext2/3 without modifying explorer.exe or providing a new shell (that functionality is built into explorer.exe itself).

I don't think it's THAT different though.  The file system still shares similar structures with Windows, such as folders.  It's just that / would become a root folder for a disk drive.  ntldr would need to be modified to accomodate that.

I always thought it was a plugin into Explorer which allowed you to view ext2/3 formatted media. Cool.

[Warrior]

Nate: They wouldn't be able to since it's formatted using Windows a product you own. It would only work if another company used the FAT filesystem (with the LFN extensions) and sold it for money.

[MyndFyre]

I always thought it was a plugin into Explorer which allowed you to view ext2/3 formatted media. Cool.

Nope.  IIRC, CreateFile() (thunk) -> (kernel) NtCreateFile() -> IFS -> HAL -> IFS -> kernel -> Win32 API.

[Joe]

FAT32 formatted removeable media such as floppy disks

Floppy disks are formatted with FAT12.

[MyndFyre]

FAT32 formatted removeable media such as floppy disks

Floppy disks are formatted with FAT12.

They *could* be though, like ZIP disks could be formatted with NTFS.  It's a hack, but it's theoretically possible.  You'd be wasting a lot of space though.

[Joe]

Anyone smart enough to hack Windows to allow a floppy to be FAT32 or NTFS formatted is also smart enough not to tell Microsoft. =p

[Newby]

Yeah, who the fuck would willingly tell Microsoft they broke their restriction on putting NTFS on a floppy disk anyhow?!

[Nate]

Nate: They wouldn't be able to since it's formatted using Windows a product you own. It would only work if another company used the FAT filesystem (with the LFN extensions) and sold it for money.

Uh they can definately charge you.  M$ would consider it a service in order to make a third-party peripheral compatable with Windows.

[Joe]

Yeah, who the fuck would willingly tell Microsoft they broke their restriction on putting NTFS on a floppy disk anyhow?!

Holy crap.

[Warrior]

Nate: They wouldn't be able to since it's formatted using Windows a product you own. It would only work if another company used the FAT filesystem (with the LFN extensions) and sold it for money.

Uh they can definately charge you.  M$ would consider it a service in order to make a third-party peripheral compatable with Windows.

If they're doing it and it's optional they'd have no way of knowing. They'd have to go check everyone individually in thier house to check what FS is on thier iPod when THEY PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRSTPLACE. They can't charge Apple nor can they charge me since a) I don't manufacture the iPod and b) I put the FS on my iPod, they do.  They can't charge you for infringing something you never sold in the first place or used in something other than a personal manner anyway. That's like them charging you to use Windows98 because it uses FAT with LFN.

[iago]

Well, iPods can read FAT32, so maybe that's a problem for Apple?

But iPod never actually displays filenames, so perhaps it doesn't use long filenames?

[Joe]

iPods are advertised as being able to store files (which they can), and they can utilize long filenames.

On the other hand, long filenames aren't used for storing music files that are read by the iPod itself.