AFAIK, the NTFS installation of NT4 won't allow you to have a primary (system) volume > 4GB. This is because NT will install a FAT16 volume and later convert it [is-it-true.org]. This may have been fixed in a service pack, but until you install the OS, how are you going to get a SP on there? Sure, you can grow the partition later, but you're being a bit disingenuous in your specifying that this problem is confined to FAT16 installation on NT4, since an NTFS installation *uses* the FAT16 installation.
Nice information, but it has nothing to do what I was talking about.
If you read the post, you will see that I was responding to a post that said WindowsXP had a 2gb partition limit for FAT32 installations. Which is NOT true.
I never said anything about the primary boot partition of NTFS on NT4 or its size.
In reference to what you said, you are partially correct, SETUP of NT4 and previous versions will not allow for a boot partition larger than 4GB; however, you can pre-partition a Hard Drive with NTFS using another WINNT computer to whatever size you would like and then install WINNT4.0 on the blank larger NTFS boot partition. (This is a well known workaround in the industry.)
As an additional note the original Pre NT4.0 setup did not fully load the NT Kernel and related drivers to support the drives or the NTFS file system, this is why the installation created a FAT partition for the file copy portion of the install. NT4.0 did fully load the NT Kernel, but the original installation mechanism for partitioning was left in from the NT 3.x days.
Windows2k and WindowsXP do not have these restrictions and fully load the NT Kernel during the initial file copy portion of the Setup.
People wanting more information try: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?sc id=kb% 3Ben-us%3B119497
I'm posting this from a WinXP machine. Let me assure you that while it can read FAT32, the OS as default will not FAT32 format any drive over (I belive) 2Gb.
FAT32 Formatting in Setup is an option, but is known to frequently fail or have significant errors.
FAT 32 Formatting once you are in the OS requires 3rd Party wares.
SCO has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the information you are providing you are either mixing with NT4 information or just making it up as you go.
Nothing I can say is convincing you, so let me reference you to the information you need.
It clearly provides information on the only limitations of doing a FAT32 installation of WindowsXP, and that is the inherent limitation of FAT32 only being able to recognize a 32GB partition size.
As for '(I belive)2Gb', you are referring to the FAT16 installation of NT4. It doesn't apply to WindowsXP.
FAT 32 Formatting once you are in the OS requires 3rd Party wares.
Here let me quote from a command prompt for your edification⦠Format/? Formats a disk for use with Windows XP.
FORMAT volume [/FS:file-system] [/V:label] [/Q] [/A:size] [/C] [/X] FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/F:size] FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/T:tracks/N:sectors] FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] FORMAT volume [/Q]
volume Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon), mount point, or volume name./FS:filesystem Specifies the type of the file system (FAT, FAT32, or NTFS).
Notice the last line?
So where do you get your information, tooth-fairy, or just make it up as you go? Third party utilities are NOT needed to format FAT32 in WindowsXP, as you said âonce you are in the OSâ(TM) â" BTW, did you know that even during Setup â" YOU ARE âIN THE OSâ(TM)? It is running a stub version of NT already at that point; you are already in the NT OS.
FAT32 Formatting in Setup is an option, but is known to frequently fail or have significant errors.
Since when? Where do you document this at? Funny in all the time our tech team has put into working with WindowsNT, they can find no reference to this, either online or in their own experience. Tooth-fairy again or just making it up as you go?
There are NO known issues or documented issues of WindowsNT EVER having a problem running on a FAT partition, either FAT16 from NT4 days or FAT32 of current days. The NT core has an installable File System, like most modern OSes, and its interaction with the file system underneath is irrelevant to how it operates in regard to failure or problems.
Besides, this is really a moot point. If you are running WindowsXP and it is your only OS, then there is NO reason not to use NTFS. It is faster with larger files, faster with large volumes, supports compression, supports encryption and can have partitions up to 16 exabytes in size.
If you are running WindowsXP on FAT32, you are missing half the benefits of WindowsXP and the security of NTFS as well as its reliability of sitting on a journalled file system, etc, etc.
Reread the post again, paying special attention to the word 'when'.
I suspect people confusing DOS kernels and NT kernels is your pet peeve, and it bothers you so much you see it everywhere.
Maybe you should reread your post, you said that it 'still isn't'. - Implying that Windows still isn't an operating system, and with the previous reference to the DOS underpinnings you set yourself up for that interpretation.
Besides, now that we are on the subject, Win9x and its successors also were TRUE Operating Systems, as they handled ALL Input/Output of the OS and the only DOS it relied upon was for compatibility with legacy application or drivers. DOS was basically a 'boot loader' for the Win9x Operating System.
Go look up the terminology of Operting System, and you will find that Win9x easily fits the definition. This is why the Win3.1 box said 'Operating Environment' and Win95 box said 'Operating System'.
Maybe your pet peeve is that some people notice when you make an ass out of yourself when you are so quick to find a reason to bash Windows and yet you still have to find a way to respond.
So, you're arguing that democrats recieved less money from a corrupt organization and acted on the behalf of the corrupt organization less often, therefore, Democrats are not corrupt?
Give me a break, neither party is a winner. Period.
But I was responding to a post implying that the Democrats were just as culpable when it comes to Enron involvement and dropping contracts to big business.
Bush and Cheney are up to their ears in scandals when it comes to corporate America. Read the papers,.
Besides, I didn't see Clinton or Gore using the Enron plane during their campaigns, and I also didn't see them give billion dollar contracts that 'blood' was lost over to their friends and companies that put money in their pocket â" like Bush and Cheney have done in just the past few months.
yeah, but you still get a choice--i don't use mac os x's journaling because of the overhead--you don't hve to use winfs if the performance penalty is too high.
If done right, journalling has little to no performance impact. NTFS has had journalling since its beginning over 10 years ago, and even 486 based machines performed just fine with NTFS.
WindowsXP and Windows2003 Server of today still use NTFS and it is still fully journalled, and the performance numbers Windows2003 Server is getting shows that NTFS is not slowing the OS down a bit.
I'm sorry that the Mac Journalling has a noticeable performance hit for you.
Yeah, but I bet you it'll be like Windows XP's theoretical ability to use FAT 32 - it can read it, but it won't actually let you format in FAT32 when doing an installation
So when is the last time you actually used WindowsXP? What you said is pretty silly.
You can install WindowsXP on FAT32, even create FAT32 partitions during setup etc, all the same options you get with NTFS during the install.
Are you trying to make up stuff or just never used it?
Wasn't it Pesident Clinton who signed the DMCA? And didn't the Dems have majority control of the senate at the time?
Yes and No... Memory refreshed yet?
Hatch was one of the main supporters of the absurd crap added into the DMCA.
Clinton signed it reluctantly, at the time saying that many of the items in the legislation would be struck down in the courts, leaving the parts that were there to protect people.
And having no line item veto, it was the only way to get the good points of the DMCA into law.
(Search for Clinton's remarks on this issue and why he signed it, as well as the other democrats that spoke out against the crap the republicans were stuffing into the DMCA.)
Hatch has normally been on the good side of technology. A few years back, he even led a judiciary hearing [wired.com] on Microsoft's evil tactics
If anyone has followed his involvement in the Microsoft battles, you will see that his motives are less than noble.
He had Novell, WordPerfect and many other major competitors to Microsoft in his state that he was supporting. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Microsoft or any other company that was slicing into these companiesâ(TM) profits.
So there is no high road he has taken in any of the Microsoft investigations.
Enron contributed to democrats. And most of their really bad shit was done during Clinton's watch? Remember the summer of 2000's rolling blackouts?
Give me a break; it was the 'Enron' plane that Bush used during his campaign to travel around the country.
Do people forget this or are they just not smart enough for it to sink in?
The Enron contributions to Bush and Republican Party tower over democratic contributions, and certainly they weren't giving the money to Gore either.
As for the rolling black outs, can anyone spell Halliburton? This is what Cheney was doing professionally when the 'false energy crisis' was happening, conveniently helping the 2000 elections.
While we are here, shall we talk about how Halliburton got the Iraq oil contracts without any bidding or other businesses being considered?
Do you think it would have anything to do with the fact that because Cheney worked for them or just the fact he STILL makes money off of Halliburton?
But if anyone actually followed this, they would remember that Clinton knew there were serious flaws in the bill and would be struck down in the courts, leaving the pieces that were meant to actually protect people in place.
He publicly stated this as his only reason he decided to sign the flawed legislation.
And not having a line item veto, it was the only way to get the bill through with the pieces that were needed. (And with the recent court rulings on this bill, most of the crap is getting thrown out all the time.)
The Republicans were the direct authors of the pieces of this bill that everyone thinks is absurd. It was their opportunity to add their crap in that everyone here seems to disagree with so adamantly.
I shall reference everyone to a few web searches for the actual items in the DMCA wording, as well as the court rulings regarding it, including Clinton and other democratâ(TM)s statements regarding the pieces that would be thrown out in court.
First, your hostile behavior is completely unacceptable, even if you are technically correct in what you are saying.
Second, you are replying to a very long article which mentions many, many issues. Even if you were correct that the article is in error, it would be a mistake only in a small percentage of the article.
Third, it is you who is mistaken. My article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. clearly references a Microsoft article: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. That Microsoft article references another article: Using Disk-Image Copying in Microsoft Windows Deployment. In the second article, Microsoft says: "Finally, you may use a process known as disk-image duplication to deploy additional corporate desktop systems. (This disk imaging/duplication process can be accomplished using third-party software or hardware created for this purpose. Microsoft does not offer such a utility.)"
The meaning of "Microsoft does not offer such a utility" is that there is no way to copy a fully installed version of Windows XP using Windows XP alone. The "third-party utilities" such as Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage and PowerDeploy boot to DOS and do sector-by-sector copies.
Volume Shadow Copy cannot make a working copy of a fully-installed disk containing Windows XP. Your post seems to indicate that you have not tried this yourself, but only seen others do it. I've tried it, and it doesn't work. I've asked Microsoft, and they agree. Who is correct, Microsoft and I, or you?
My first reaction after reading 'your' article was of shame that someone could seem to be so authoritative on a subject they knew so little about. Even though you encourage feedback at the bottom of the article, I choose not to at the time because of the amount of time it would take to address not only the ideological errors, but the vast amount of technical errors in your article.
Frankly, you know very little about what you write about, but yet have a burning desire to bloviate about the 'shortcomings' you see in WindowsXP. Your article is not technically informative but rather propaganda that you are using to support your 'OS religion'.
I do not believe in the concept of OS religions and think that by segregating ourselves with OS distinctions is something that is naive and will only continue to fragment the progression of technology as I have witnessed too many times in the past.
You spend a lot of word space referring to the 'insecurity' of Microsoft software and the 'defective nature' of Microsoft software and try to back this up with references to a few security alerts and vulnerabilities.
You cleverly offer a simple list of the seemingly massive amount of vulnerabilities in Microsoft Products from June 18, 2002 to December 9, 2002. However you fail to inform your users that the vulnerabilities you reference are not in reference to one product or even one OS. Why not repost the list with vulnerabilities that were for and only affected WindowsXP, since this is the basis of your article, instead of including a count of vulnerabilities that apply to other versions of Windows and even Internet Explorer versions that were older than the version that shipped in WindowsXP.
I also find it surprising that you also have no comparative references in your article to the massive amount of security breaches, fixes, and bugs that have been found in any other operating system.
Are you intentionally leaving out these little facts, or just enjoy misleading your readers to make your 'religious point'.
Just as example, if you would check the security alerts from any *nix variant, you will find that the alerts easily outnumber what you refer to as the 'vast' amount of 'defects' in Microsoft Products. Take the Debian home page for example. Just the Security alerts in the past couple of months out number the total amount of security alerts for WindowsXP in over one year's time. From June 6, 2003 to June 13,
You are mistaken. Try it sometime. Copy all files from a bootable partition to another bootable partition. You will find that some files did not copy. That's why Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage boot to DOS.
Excuse me, did you even read what I wrote or were you in such a hurry to knock XP that what I said was not important.
Of course you CANNOT do a file COPY or a XCOPY of in-use (locked) files in WindowsXP due to the file and security protections in NTFS. Duh, this is part of the basis of what the NTFS security and locking model is based upon. Even FAT/FAT32 has basic file locking mechanisms to prevent this.
However, WindowsXP has a feature called 'Volume Shadow Copy' - you can find it in the services on any XP machine if you don't believe it exists.
Using this service (as the WindowsXP Backup program does) allows XP to back up any and all files on a NTFS volume.
It will even allow backing of in-use and inter-transaction files â" like database files. (This is truly a brilliant technology.)
This is a feature and service available in WindowsXP that other applications can access and use to do backups, or copy files, or copy an entire partition, just like WindowsXP backup can.
Additionally, in regard to your generic example of copying a bootable partition, if you boot from another NTFS partition you can copy a bootable partition on another NTFS drive all day long as long as the files are not locked. We use this method to make images and backups of NTFS drives all the time, so even with your generic example, you are wrong.
Next time before opening mouth, actually know what you are talking about, actually read the post, and try doing a little research for yourself, I'll start you off:
Backup Problems: Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files..... Actual Article Quote "Windows 98 can copy all of its own files, Windows XP cannot. The Windows XP file system is artificially crippled; it cannot copy some of its own system files. This makes it difficult to make functional backups. Microsoft apparently uses this crippling as copy protection"
Talk about ignorance and FUD. Where are people getting this stuff?
WindowsXP has a mechanism that is called Shadow Volume Copying, when invoked, can even backup IN USE files that are hard locked by other processes.
This is how and why WindowsXP Backup CAN backup every file and piece of the OS on a Hard Drive without disturbing the users using the computer at the same time.
It is also an openly programmable service that other programs (like backups) can utilize to create copies of in use files and backup a user's hard drive.
Articles bloviating with ignorant information like this just makes everyone here in the Open Source and Slashdot world look stupid.
At least find a 'real' reason to bash XP if that is your 'goal of the day', making stuff up is just making the whole community look ridiculous.
And the funniest part of this Article's statement... Windows98 CANNOT copy all of it own files unless the computer is booted into safe mode. The 'in use' files are locked and cannot be copied.
So actually WindowsXP is better at backing up information than Windows98, and several other unnamed OSes because of its Volume Shadow service.
cant you understand the point ?.RTF is an Open Standard, used in almost all word processors..DOC is a Closed, proprietary, secret format.
Do you understand ?
No, can't grasp this vast amount of knowledge... LOL
RTF is a standard because of Microsoftâ(TM)s use of it was so widespread, just as.DOC has slowly become a standard (as Open Office will try to open it, as well as PageMaker, Corel, etc).
It is not a truly open standard/format anymore than.DOC is. Even PDF isnâ(TM)t an open standard. Widespread, yes, Open â" NO.
It does feel good to kill the.doc files one by one, and if my explanation has a little FUD in it, oh well.
I learned alot from MS.
This is just too funny⦠Kill Microsoft standards by using another Microsoft standard.
RTF was designed by Microsoft and is a Microsoft Standard that they opened.
So you are pushing users to another Microsoft 'standard' to get even with Microsoft.
Smart, very smart... LOL
Why not just have the users use a format like PDF, or embed the fonts in the document when they save it (almost all Word Processor and Publication creation programs offer this feature - BTW, MS Word was the first to start font embedding as well, so maybe you will want to think of something else.)
There are tons of options, but having the users lose all their font, table and graphical formatting just to save the file in RTF for âyourâ(TM) convenience is just silly.
And you tell them you want this in RTF so you can archive and have the documents published correctly â" and then have them strip the file of its correct formatting. LOL
Donâ(TM)t let me mislead you, OSX is not perfect. I was just stating that it was technically in the same class as Windows 3.0 and 3.1, which are VERY OLD OS designs.
Mac System software does not take full advantage of the processing power in the PPC chip like OSX can. However, OSX being a *nix variant has some of the same flaws as other *nixes. And bringing the System 9 applications over to OSX posed a major problem for Apple.
No OS is perfect. So far OSX is the best Apple has produced.
I can also understand your compatibility issues. Microsoft was careful to include a full 16bit WIN16 and DOS compatibility layer in WindowsNT back in 1993, and even this was not enough to cover everything. It wasn't until Win2k and WinXP that the market had progressed far enough with the WDM model and non-legacy applications for WindowsXP to be the first non-legacy replacement for the Win3.1/Win9x/DOS OSes.
It may also take Apple a while. No matter how well they do their compatibility, it won't be the same and they are going to be reliant on vendors for better OSX support to bring OSX to the rest of the Mac mainstream.
As your story states, there are times when people can't move to OSX for compatibility or known conflict issues. One of my good friends in the journalism depart at the University have kept Mac System 9 on almost all their system just because of the lack of support from vendors like Quark.
Just like Microsoft did with WinXP, Apple will have to pave a road for the software and hardware vendors to move to OSX and leave behind software for System 9 completely.
One nice part about Microsoft's road is that WinXP runs Windows 3.1 and DOS software often better than the original Windows 3.1 and DOS did themselves.
Apple made a huge mistake by making their OSX System 9 Compatibility run a full version of System 9, instead of layering in the compatibility like WinXP does with DOS/Win9x/Win3.1, where the user doesn't even have to know or realize that the application is running in an older subsystem extension, it just runs.
Give Apple some time, they will get it down. OSX is still a new leap for them, just like NT was a new leap for Microsoft 10 years ago.
I must be doing something wrong: I never noticed anything like that...
Really... Lucky, lucky...
Here try this, open a MP3 to play in the background and then open a couple of QuickTime Videos and watch them all play without skipping or losing sound in any of the videos or the MP3. (Having the sound Mix and play for all applications.)
Then open Mozilla or another app.
This will usually bring a System 9 Mac to a crawl, where a kludge like Win98 would handle this type of thing without a problem.
Unfortunately, the GDI was 98% the same as the GDI in Win 3.11 which meant it was a Win16 thing and needed the mutex because it was not reentrant. This means that any win16 application that locked up would apparently make the OS lock up too. The Win16 app would freeze while holding the mutex. As each of the other apps (win16 or win32) tried to grab the mutex to draw something on the screen they would apparently freeze too. Your OS then had the appearence of being totally frozen, but it could be recovered by ctrl-alt-deling and killing the frozen app
The 16bit Mutext in Win9x had nothing to do with the GUI and screen drawing, nor was it 98% the same as Win16.
Win9x was significantly different than Win3.1, by not only having a 32bit preemptive design, but also a multiple message input queue, but also have full 32bit drivers throughout the OS, including video. The last two are something that OS/2 didn't even have.
You are confusing your facts a bit regarding the 16bit mutext in Win9x.
For example, a hung application would not freeze the mouse unless it was a 16bit application or using 16bit functions that dropped through the 16bit mutext. Additionally, if what you say was true, things like WinG and DirectX would not even function on Win9x, but they do, because of the full 32bit driver implementation in Win9x.
Let me repeat, only applications that used 16bit technology and dropped through the 16bit mutext were subject to the cooperative problems of the 16bit mutex.
The Win32 GDI functions which Win9x was based on, DID NOT pass through the 16bit Mutext as you suggest.
I am not going to defend Win9x any further, as I see it only as a building platform, and not even in the same league as NT or other modern *nixes.
My point stands, Mac OS System 9 has poor memory management, doesnâ(TM)t take advantage of the hardware it is running on, and is a cooperative multitasking based OS.
Lets move on to NT/WinXP/Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris/or Mac OSX and leave the other legacy OSes where they belong, in the past.
I would, but the software that some of my users have to use will only run in native 9...running in compatibility mode is "not supported." And the upgrade is $$$.
This is when you should be yelling at the providers of this software to provide at the very least a compatible version, if not a native OSX version.
I hate when software vendors pull stuff like this to users, especially considering that OSX has been out a few years now.
BTW, there are ways to dual boot for the older software (even thought it would be a pain to restart just to access a single program). But you could at least have fun with OSX when you aren't running the other software.
Truly scream at the incompatible software vendors to get their attention.
If correct English and Grammar is that important, then you should add a comma to your statement. Without it, the verb can be misconstrued.
In example: Learn how to speak English, you fuck.
*smile*
Re:mac problem
on
Mac OS X Hints
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have always been shocked at OS 9's inabililty to multitask with any speed
This is because the multi-tasking architecture in System 9 is cooperative, not pre-emptive.
In other words, System 9 does not multi-task any better than Windows 3.0 did in 1990.
This has been my biggest complaint of Apple up until the release of OSX. No matter how fast the PPC chip, if System 8 or System 9 was running the system, just playing an MP3 and doing something else would skip the music. Or do something in Finder and watch the rest of the system literally stop responding until Finder was done. (And the concept of playing two MP3 files at the same time was just crazy talk for System 9 users.)
OSX is the first (desktop) Apple OS that has true pre-emptive multitasking. This and its new memory management model (System 9 and lower memory management was just archaic) are two big reasons that if you are a Mac User still using System 9, you should Run to get OSX.
With System 9 and older Mac System software, you are basically using an OS technology that is a technically on the same level as Windows 3.0. (Not something people want to hear, but true none the less.)
(And please donâ(TM)t post about Windows95 having a 16bit Mutext. This is not a flame war of OS relgion. We all know that when running 16bit applications, the 16bit mutext in Win95 would also be cooperative. However when running only 32bit (WIN32) applications, it was fully preemptive. And yes, WindowsNT and Linux were designed to be and are pre-emptive multitasking OSes that are more than 10 years old.)
Again I repeat if you are a Mac user running System 9 â" run, do not walk, to get OSX.
Slashdot Mirror
But I stand by my statement that you assumed something that wasn't said, just like you assumed it was my comment in the first place.
Ok, debatable whether I read too much into it, but you are correct on the second part, I did assume incorrectly.
A humble 'whoops' is in order...
AFAIK, the NTFS installation of NT4 won't allow you to have a primary (system) volume > 4GB. This is because NT will install a FAT16 volume and later convert it [is-it-true.org]. This may have been fixed in a service pack, but until you install the OS, how are you going to get a SP on there? Sure, you can
c id=kb% 3Ben-us%3B119497
grow the partition later, but you're being a bit disingenuous in your specifying that this problem is confined to FAT16 installation on NT4, since an NTFS installation *uses* the FAT16 installation.
Nice information, but it has nothing to do what I was talking about.
If you read the post, you will see that I was responding to a post that said WindowsXP had a 2gb partition limit for FAT32 installations. Which is NOT true.
I never said anything about the primary boot partition of NTFS on NT4 or its size.
In reference to what you said, you are partially correct, SETUP of NT4 and previous versions will not allow for a boot partition larger than 4GB; however, you can pre-partition a Hard Drive with NTFS using another WINNT computer to whatever size you would like and then install WINNT4.0 on the blank larger NTFS boot partition. (This is a well known workaround in the industry.)
As an additional note the original Pre NT4.0 setup did not fully load the NT Kernel and related drivers to support the drives or the NTFS file system, this is why the installation created a FAT partition for the file copy portion of the install. NT4.0 did fully load the NT Kernel, but the original installation mechanism for partitioning was left in from the NT 3.x days.
Windows2k and WindowsXP do not have these restrictions and fully load the NT Kernel during the initial file copy portion of the Setup.
People wanting more information try:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?s
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
I'm posting this from a WinXP machine. Let me assure you that while it can read FAT32, the OS as default will not FAT32 format any drive over (I belive) 2Gb.
w to /gettingstarted/guide/installnew.asp
/?
/N:sectors] /FS:filesystem Specifies the type of the file system (FAT, FAT32, or NTFS).
FAT32 Formatting in Setup is an option, but is known to frequently fail or have significant errors.
FAT 32 Formatting once you are in the OS requires 3rd Party wares.
SCO has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
I hate to rain on your parade, but the information you are providing you are either mixing with NT4 information or just making it up as you go.
Nothing I can say is convincing you, so let me reference you to the information you need.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/ho
It clearly provides information on the only limitations of doing a FAT32 installation of WindowsXP, and that is the inherent limitation of FAT32 only being able to recognize a 32GB partition size.
As for '(I belive)2Gb', you are referring to the FAT16 installation of NT4. It doesn't apply to WindowsXP.
FAT 32 Formatting once you are in the OS requires 3rd Party wares.
Here let me quote from a command prompt for your edificationâ¦
Format
Formats a disk for use with Windows XP.
FORMAT volume [/FS:file-system] [/V:label] [/Q] [/A:size] [/C] [/X]
FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/F:size]
FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q] [/T:tracks
FORMAT volume [/V:label] [/Q]
FORMAT volume [/Q]
volume Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon), mount point, or volume name.
Notice the last line?
So where do you get your information, tooth-fairy, or just make it up as you go? Third party utilities are NOT needed to format FAT32 in WindowsXP, as you said âonce you are in the OSâ(TM) â" BTW, did you know that even during Setup â" YOU ARE âIN THE OSâ(TM)? It is running a stub version of NT already at that point; you are already in the NT OS.
FAT32 Formatting in Setup is an option, but is known to frequently fail or have significant errors.
Since when? Where do you document this at? Funny in all the time our tech team has put into working with WindowsNT, they can find no reference to this, either online or in their own experience. Tooth-fairy again or just making it up as you go?
There are NO known issues or documented issues of WindowsNT EVER having a problem running on a FAT partition, either FAT16 from NT4 days or FAT32 of current days. The NT core has an installable File System, like most modern OSes, and its interaction with the file system underneath is irrelevant to how it operates in regard to failure or problems.
Besides, this is really a moot point. If you are running WindowsXP and it is your only OS, then there is NO reason not to use NTFS. It is faster with larger files, faster with large volumes, supports compression, supports encryption and can have partitions up to 16 exabytes in size.
If you are running WindowsXP on FAT32, you are missing half the benefits of WindowsXP and the security of NTFS as well as its reliability of sitting on a journalled file system, etc, etc.
Geesh.
Reread the post again, paying special attention to the word 'when'.
I suspect people confusing DOS kernels and NT kernels is your pet peeve, and it bothers you so much you see it everywhere.
Maybe you should reread your post, you said that it 'still isn't'. - Implying that Windows still isn't an operating system, and with the previous reference to the DOS underpinnings you set yourself up for that interpretation.
Besides, now that we are on the subject, Win9x and its successors also were TRUE Operating Systems, as they handled ALL Input/Output of the OS and the only DOS it relied upon was for compatibility with legacy application or drivers. DOS was basically a 'boot loader' for the Win9x Operating System.
Go look up the terminology of Operting System, and you will find that Win9x easily fits the definition. This is why the Win3.1 box said 'Operating Environment' and Win95 box said 'Operating System'.
Maybe your pet peeve is that some people notice when you make an ass out of yourself when you are so quick to find a reason to bash Windows and yet you still have to find a way to respond.
Geesh...
So, you're arguing that democrats recieved less money from a corrupt organization and acted on the behalf of the corrupt organization less often, therefore, Democrats are not corrupt?
Give me a break, neither party is a winner. Period.
But I was responding to a post implying that the Democrats were just as culpable when it comes to Enron involvement and dropping contracts to big business.
Bush and Cheney are up to their ears in scandals when it comes to corporate America. Read the papers,.
Besides, I didn't see Clinton or Gore using the Enron plane during their campaigns, and I also didn't see them give billion dollar contracts that 'blood' was lost over to their friends and companies that put money in their pocket â" like Bush and Cheney have done in just the past few months.
yeah, but you still get a choice--i don't use mac os x's journaling because of the overhead--you don't hve to use winfs if the performance penalty is too high.
If done right, journalling has little to no performance impact. NTFS has had journalling since its beginning over 10 years ago, and even 486 based machines performed just fine with NTFS.
WindowsXP and Windows2003 Server of today still use NTFS and it is still fully journalled, and the performance numbers Windows2003 Server is getting shows that NTFS is not slowing the OS down a bit.
I'm sorry that the Mac Journalling has a noticeable performance hit for you.
Yeah, but I bet you it'll be like Windows XP's theoretical ability to use FAT 32 - it can read it, but it won't actually let you format in FAT32 when doing an installation
So when is the last time you actually used WindowsXP? What you said is pretty silly.
You can install WindowsXP on FAT32, even create FAT32 partitions during setup etc, all the same options you get with NTFS during the install.
Are you trying to make up stuff or just never used it?
Geeshâ¦
Thats ok, windows wasn't a real operataing system when it ran on top of DOS. hmmmmm. come to think of it, it still isn't..
Windows95,98,ME debatable...
However, WINNT, Win2k, and WindowsXP are very much their OWN OS, and DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DOS. Where have you been?
How can it be that NT is over 10 years old, and people are still think it is based on DOS...
And how come people still think that Windows9x and the NT based Windows variants are even remotely the same after all these years?
Geesh...
Wasn't it Pesident Clinton who signed the DMCA? And didn't the Dems have majority control of the senate at the time?
Yes and No... Memory refreshed yet?
Hatch was one of the main supporters of the absurd crap added into the DMCA.
Clinton signed it reluctantly, at the time saying that many of the items in the legislation would be struck down in the courts, leaving the parts that were there to protect people.
And having no line item veto, it was the only way to get the good points of the DMCA into law.
(Search for Clinton's remarks on this issue and why he signed it, as well as the other democrats that spoke out against the crap the republicans were stuffing into the DMCA.)
Hatch has normally been on the good side of technology. A few years back, he even led a judiciary hearing [wired.com] on Microsoft's evil tactics
If anyone has followed his involvement in the Microsoft battles, you will see that his motives are less than noble.
He had Novell, WordPerfect and many other major competitors to Microsoft in his state that he was supporting. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Microsoft or any other company that was slicing into these companiesâ(TM) profits.
So there is no high road he has taken in any of the Microsoft investigations.
Anyone notice Microsoft isn't on the list...
Even they aren't that stupid.
Enron contributed to democrats. And most of their really bad shit was done during Clinton's watch? Remember the summer of 2000's rolling blackouts?
Give me a break; it was the 'Enron' plane that Bush used during his campaign to travel around the country.
Do people forget this or are they just not smart enough for it to sink in?
The Enron contributions to Bush and Republican Party tower over democratic contributions, and certainly they weren't giving the money to Gore either.
As for the rolling black outs, can anyone spell Halliburton? This is what Cheney was doing professionally when the 'false energy crisis' was happening, conveniently helping the 2000 elections.
While we are here, shall we talk about how Halliburton got the Iraq oil contracts without any bidding or other businesses being considered?
Do you think it would have anything to do with the fact that because Cheney worked for them or just the fact he STILL makes money off of Halliburton?
Geeshâ¦
DMCA, signed into law by a D. Just remember that.
But if anyone actually followed this, they would remember that Clinton knew there were serious flaws in the bill and would be struck down in the courts, leaving the pieces that were meant to actually protect people in place.
He publicly stated this as his only reason he decided to sign the flawed legislation.
And not having a line item veto, it was the only way to get the bill through with the pieces that were needed. (And with the recent court rulings on this bill, most of the crap is getting thrown out all the time.)
The Republicans were the direct authors of the pieces of this bill that everyone thinks is absurd. It was their opportunity to add their crap in that everyone here seems to disagree with so adamantly.
I shall reference everyone to a few web searches for the actual items in the DMCA wording, as well as the court rulings regarding it, including Clinton and other democratâ(TM)s statements regarding the pieces that would be thrown out in court.
First, your hostile behavior is completely unacceptable, even if you are technically correct in what you are saying.
Second, you are replying to a very long article which mentions many, many issues. Even if you were correct that the article is in error, it would be a mistake only in a small percentage of the article.
Third, it is you who is mistaken. My article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. clearly references a Microsoft article: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. That Microsoft article references another article: Using Disk-Image Copying in Microsoft Windows Deployment. In the second article, Microsoft says: "Finally, you may use a process known as disk-image duplication to deploy additional corporate desktop systems. (This disk imaging/duplication process can be accomplished using third-party software or hardware created for this purpose. Microsoft does not offer such a utility.)"
The meaning of "Microsoft does not offer such a utility" is that there is no way to copy a fully installed version of Windows XP using Windows XP alone. The "third-party utilities" such as Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage and PowerDeploy boot to DOS and do sector-by-sector copies.
Volume Shadow Copy cannot make a working copy of a fully-installed disk containing Windows XP. Your post seems to indicate that you have not tried this yourself, but only seen others do it. I've tried it, and it doesn't work. I've asked Microsoft, and they agree. Who is correct, Microsoft and I, or you?
My first reaction after reading 'your' article was of shame that someone could seem to be so authoritative on a subject they knew so little about. Even though you encourage feedback at the bottom of the article, I choose not to at the time because of the amount of time it would take to address not only the ideological errors, but the vast amount of technical errors in your article.
Frankly, you know very little about what you write about, but yet have a burning desire to bloviate about the 'shortcomings' you see in WindowsXP. Your article is not technically informative but rather propaganda that you are using to support your 'OS religion'.
I do not believe in the concept of OS religions and think that by segregating ourselves with OS distinctions is something that is naive and will only continue to fragment the progression of technology as I have witnessed too many times in the past.
You spend a lot of word space referring to the 'insecurity' of Microsoft software and the 'defective nature' of Microsoft software and try to back this up with references to a few security alerts and vulnerabilities.
You cleverly offer a simple list of the seemingly massive amount of vulnerabilities in Microsoft Products from June 18, 2002 to December 9, 2002. However you fail to inform your users that the vulnerabilities you reference are not in reference to one product or even one OS. Why not repost the list with vulnerabilities that were for and only affected WindowsXP, since this is the basis of your article, instead of including a count of vulnerabilities that apply to other versions of Windows and even Internet Explorer versions that were older than the version that shipped in WindowsXP.
I also find it surprising that you also have no comparative references in your article to the massive amount of security breaches, fixes, and bugs that have been found in any other operating system.
Are you intentionally leaving out these little facts, or just enjoy misleading your readers to make your 'religious point'.
Just as example, if you would check the security alerts from any *nix variant, you will find that the alerts easily outnumber what you refer to as the 'vast' amount of 'defects' in Microsoft Products. Take the Debian home page for example. Just the Security alerts in the past couple of months out number the total amount of security alerts for WindowsXP in over one year's time. From June 6, 2003 to June 13,
You are mistaken. Try it sometime. Copy all files from a bootable partition to another bootable partition. You will find that some files did not copy. That's why Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage boot to DOS.
s xp/home/using/prod uctdoc/en/default.asp?url=/windowsxp/home/using/pr oductdoc/en/ntbackup_backup_snapshot.asp
t /treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prdg_ dsm_vtrj.asp
Excuse me, did you even read what I wrote or were you in such a hurry to knock XP that what I said was not important.
Of course you CANNOT do a file COPY or a XCOPY of in-use (locked) files in WindowsXP due to the file and security protections in NTFS. Duh, this is part of the basis of what the NTFS security and locking model is based upon. Even FAT/FAT32 has basic file locking mechanisms to prevent this.
However, WindowsXP has a feature called 'Volume Shadow Copy' - you can find it in the services on any XP machine if you don't believe it exists.
Using this service (as the WindowsXP Backup program does) allows XP to back up any and all files on a NTFS volume.
It will even allow backing of in-use and inter-transaction files â" like database files. (This is truly a brilliant technology.)
This is a feature and service available in WindowsXP that other applications can access and use to do backups, or copy files, or copy an entire partition, just like WindowsXP backup can.
Additionally, in regard to your generic example of copying a bootable partition, if you boot from another NTFS partition you can copy a bootable partition on another NTFS drive all day long as long as the files are not locked. We use this method to make images and backups of NTFS drives all the time, so even with your generic example, you are wrong.
Next time before opening mouth, actually know what you are talking about, actually read the post, and try doing a little research for yourself, I'll start you off:
Try-----------
http://www.microsoft.com/window
Or------------
http://www.microsoft.com/techne
The smaller the mind, the more ignorance it can hold. â" Unknown
Backup Problems: Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files.....
Actual Article Quote
"Windows 98 can copy all of its own files, Windows XP cannot. The Windows XP file system is artificially crippled; it cannot copy some of its own system files. This makes it difficult to make functional backups. Microsoft apparently uses this crippling as copy protection"
Talk about ignorance and FUD. Where are people getting this stuff?
WindowsXP has a mechanism that is called Shadow Volume Copying, when invoked, can even backup IN USE files that are hard locked by other processes.
This is how and why WindowsXP Backup CAN backup every file and piece of the OS on a Hard Drive without disturbing the users using the computer at the same time.
It is also an openly programmable service that other programs (like backups) can utilize to create copies of in use files and backup a user's hard drive.
Articles bloviating with ignorant information like this just makes everyone here in the Open Source and Slashdot world look stupid.
At least find a 'real' reason to bash XP if that is your 'goal of the day', making stuff up is just making the whole community look ridiculous.
And the funniest part of this Article's statement... Windows98 CANNOT copy all of it own files unless the computer is booted into safe mode. The 'in use' files are locked and cannot be copied.
So actually WindowsXP is better at backing up information than Windows98, and several other unnamed OSes because of its Volume Shadow service.
Well,
.RTF is an Open Standard, used in almost all word processors. .DOC is a Closed, proprietary, secret format.
.DOC has slowly become a standard (as Open Office will try to open it, as well as PageMaker, Corel, etc).
.DOC is. Even PDF isnâ(TM)t an open standard. Widespread, yes, Open â" NO.
cant you understand the point ?
Do you understand ?
No, can't grasp this vast amount of knowledge... LOL
RTF is a standard because of Microsoftâ(TM)s use of it was so widespread, just as
It is not a truly open standard/format anymore than
Now do you understand?
This is still just too funny...
It does feel good to kill the .doc files one by one, and if my explanation has a little FUD in it, oh well.
I learned alot from MS.
This is just too funny⦠Kill Microsoft standards by using another Microsoft standard.
RTF was designed by Microsoft and is a Microsoft Standard that they opened.
So you are pushing users to another Microsoft 'standard' to get even with Microsoft.
Smart, very smart... LOL
Why not just have the users use a format like PDF, or embed the fonts in the document when they save it (almost all Word Processor and Publication creation programs offer this feature - BTW, MS Word was the first to start font embedding as well, so maybe you will want to think of something else.)
There are tons of options, but having the users lose all their font, table and graphical formatting just to save the file in RTF for âyourâ(TM) convenience is just silly.
And you tell them you want this in RTF so you can archive and have the documents published correctly â" and then have them strip the file of its correct formatting. LOL
This is just way too funny.
As opposed to: Learn how to speak, English you fuck.
Exactly!
*LOL*
TheNetAvenger
Donâ(TM)t let me mislead you, OSX is not perfect. I was just stating that it was technically in the same class as Windows 3.0 and 3.1, which are VERY OLD OS designs.
Mac System software does not take full advantage of the processing power in the PPC chip like OSX can. However, OSX being a *nix variant has some of the same flaws as other *nixes. And bringing the System 9 applications over to OSX posed a major problem for Apple.
No OS is perfect. So far OSX is the best Apple has produced.
I can also understand your compatibility issues. Microsoft was careful to include a full 16bit WIN16 and DOS compatibility layer in WindowsNT back in 1993, and even this was not enough to cover everything. It wasn't until Win2k and WinXP that the market had progressed far enough with the WDM model and non-legacy applications for WindowsXP to be the first non-legacy replacement for the Win3.1/Win9x/DOS OSes.
It may also take Apple a while. No matter how well they do their compatibility, it won't be the same and they are going to be reliant on vendors for better OSX support to bring OSX to the rest of the Mac mainstream.
As your story states, there are times when people can't move to OSX for compatibility or known conflict issues. One of my good friends in the journalism depart at the University have kept Mac System 9 on almost all their system just because of the lack of support from vendors like Quark.
Just like Microsoft did with WinXP, Apple will have to pave a road for the software and hardware vendors to move to OSX and leave behind software for System 9 completely.
One nice part about Microsoft's road is that WinXP runs Windows 3.1 and DOS software often better than the original Windows 3.1 and DOS did themselves.
Apple made a huge mistake by making their OSX System 9 Compatibility run a full version of System 9, instead of layering in the compatibility like WinXP does with DOS/Win9x/Win3.1, where the user doesn't even have to know or realize that the application is running in an older subsystem extension, it just runs.
Give Apple some time, they will get it down. OSX is still a new leap for them, just like NT was a new leap for Microsoft 10 years ago.
Good Luck,
The Net Avenger
I must be doing something wrong: I never noticed anything like that...
Really... Lucky, lucky...
Here try this, open a MP3 to play in the background and then open a couple of QuickTime Videos and watch them all play without skipping or losing sound in any of the videos or the MP3. (Having the sound Mix and play for all applications.)
Then open Mozilla or another app.
This will usually bring a System 9 Mac to a crawl, where a kludge like Win98 would handle this type of thing without a problem.
Hence, cooperative multitasking bad, pre-emptive multitasking good. Period.
I will let you check the technilogical differences of each on your own.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Unfortunately, the GDI was 98% the same as the GDI in Win 3.11 which meant it was a Win16 thing and needed the mutex because it was not reentrant. This means that any win16 application that locked up would apparently make the OS lock up too. The Win16 app would freeze while holding the mutex. As each of the other apps (win16 or win32) tried to grab the mutex to draw something on the screen they would apparently freeze too. Your OS then had the appearence of being totally frozen, but it could be recovered by ctrl-alt-deling and killing the frozen app
The 16bit Mutext in Win9x had nothing to do with the GUI and screen drawing, nor was it 98% the same as Win16.
Win9x was significantly different than Win3.1, by not only having a 32bit preemptive design, but also a multiple message input queue, but also have full 32bit drivers throughout the OS, including video. The last two are something that OS/2 didn't even have.
You are confusing your facts a bit regarding the 16bit mutext in Win9x.
For example, a hung application would not freeze the mouse unless it was a 16bit application or using 16bit functions that dropped through the 16bit mutext. Additionally, if what you say was true, things like WinG and DirectX would not even function on Win9x, but they do, because of the full 32bit driver implementation in Win9x.
Let me repeat, only applications that used 16bit technology and dropped through the 16bit mutext were subject to the cooperative problems of the 16bit mutex.
The Win32 GDI functions which Win9x was based on, DID NOT pass through the 16bit Mutext as you suggest.
I am not going to defend Win9x any further, as I see it only as a building platform, and not even in the same league as NT or other modern *nixes.
My point stands, Mac OS System 9 has poor memory management, doesnâ(TM)t take advantage of the hardware it is running on, and is a cooperative multitasking based OS.
Lets move on to NT/WinXP/Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris/or Mac OSX and leave the other legacy OSes where they belong, in the past.
I would, but the software that some of my users have to use will only run in native 9...running in compatibility mode is "not supported." And the upgrade is $$$.
This is when you should be yelling at the providers of this software to provide at the very least a compatible version, if not a native OSX version.
I hate when software vendors pull stuff like this to users, especially considering that OSX has been out a few years now.
BTW, there are ways to dual boot for the older software (even thought it would be a pain to restart just to access a single program). But you could at least have fun with OSX when you aren't running the other software.
Truly scream at the incompatible software vendors to get their attention.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Learn how to speak English you fuck.
If correct English and Grammar is that important, then you should add a comma to your statement. Without it, the verb can be misconstrued.
In example: Learn how to speak English, you fuck.
*smile*
I have always been shocked at OS 9's inabililty to multitask with any speed
This is because the multi-tasking architecture in System 9 is cooperative, not pre-emptive.
In other words, System 9 does not multi-task any better than Windows 3.0 did in 1990.
This has been my biggest complaint of Apple up until the release of OSX. No matter how fast the PPC chip, if System 8 or System 9 was running the system, just playing an MP3 and doing something else would skip the music. Or do something in Finder and watch the rest of the system literally stop responding until Finder was done. (And the concept of playing two MP3 files at the same time was just crazy talk for System 9 users.)
OSX is the first (desktop) Apple OS that has true pre-emptive multitasking. This and its new memory management model (System 9 and lower memory management was just archaic) are two big reasons that if you are a Mac User still using System 9, you should Run to get OSX.
With System 9 and older Mac System software, you are basically using an OS technology that is a technically on the same level as Windows 3.0. (Not something people want to hear, but true none the less.)
(And please donâ(TM)t post about Windows95 having a 16bit Mutext. This is not a flame war of OS relgion. We all know that when running 16bit applications, the 16bit mutext in Win95 would also be cooperative. However when running only 32bit (WIN32) applications, it was fully preemptive. And yes, WindowsNT and Linux were designed to be and are pre-emptive multitasking OSes that are more than 10 years old.)
Again I repeat if you are a Mac user running System 9 â" run, do not walk, to get OSX.