Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

4desasters 4u, DOSsers (Developers)

posted by DOS386, 24.01.2009, 09:42
(edited by DOS386 on 24.01.2009, 09:54)

I did some more interesting tests:

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=9016
http://board.flatassembler.net/download.php?id=4177

The download contains a Bunch of Tests That Shock (I am aware that a few guys here might hate it again, still, at least, my bunch has no chance to approach the level of evilness provided by the Bunch of Trolls That Ruin :lol:)

1. The "massive data losses" on FAT+ >=4 GiB files in Windoze don't occur at all. Actually they seem to be excellently protected :-) ... neither opening nor kick out is possible, and without being even able to open such a file you can't brew an incomplete / truncated copy :lol3: Also the XP's scandisk seems to support NTSC only so it's impossible to "use" it for this purpose. The only way to cause the "badly needed" damage is to copy some other (< 4 GiB) file on same volume and push the RESET button during the action. Then and only then XP launches it's boot-up-only FAT28 scandisk and truncates all FAT+ files. This is almost an non-issue however, compared to installing MS-DOG on a HD with FAT28/NTFS/Raiser partitions, the latter will destroy your MBR, make all your fancy "OS'es" (Windoze 7 Seven, Linu-X64, ...) unbootable and destroy much more data, not only files > 4 GiB. :-D

2. SEEKERR exposes still buggy handling of FAT+ in EDR-DOS ... this might make King Udo desperate :crying: or does it even make some enemies of him happy ? :crying:

3. SEEKBACK is a very interesting test showing that seeks back are unusably slow on FAT filesystem: 5 to 10 times slower with caching HD and 15 to 20 times slower with a non-caching HD :crying: The reason for the effect isn't unknown, it's the poor FAT "design" :-P BTW, I of course didn't use Jack's 12-Jan-09 UIDE nor any other caching addon. Also interesting is, that FreeDOS performs noticeably slower that EDR-DOS, the famous superiority of C compiler-optimized code over manual ASM mess has been proven again :-D And finally, inside NTV- :crying: -DM, the performance is pretended to be much better, on 0th run it's much faster than any DOS and same for both directions, on any subsequent attempt both times are ZERO :surprised: This shows that Windoze caches the complete FAT area used by a file just at occasion of opening (and explains why FAT+ files are protected :lol: that well), as well as any data being read from a file - this costs only 2 + 1.6 MiB of RAM. This "design" fault of course is fixed in my coming DOS filesystem :-)

4. Japheth wrote:

> If there is "something" to come "in a few years", it might not interest everyone
sol wrote:

> Add a filesystem that took longer than 10 minutes to design.
But this time sol trashed your rant that well that I can't add any arguments anymore ;-)

5. (oops didn't I promise 4 only ? ;-) ) Rugxulo wrote:

> As the Wikipedia article mentions, exFAT (for example) used 96 KB where
> NTFS used 47 MB overhead (on a 4 GB flash drive). Quite a difference
Very complete info ... for what cost ? Also, since there is no EX-FAT spec ... :-D

6. sol wrote:

> Linux would never use exFAT as its primary FS
Maybe a rare case where DOS could learn from the Linux guys ? ;-)

> All of their shit is patented.
> You might as well stop using Fat12, Fat16 and Fat32.
COOL. But FAT12 and FAT16 patents are definitely expired, if ever existed. Also, FAT sucks anyway, see above, it was "designed" in a time when neither subdirectories nor seeking were needed, and the stuff got just hacked onto it, so, YES, stopping using it is a good idea :hungry:

> How did this dumb thread come back?
I don't know.

> Implement something that isn't crap
Examples please. :hungry:

> and benefit from the code that already exists.
I'm not aware of any usable code.

> drivers under Windows & Unixes - this "FAT32+" stuff has
> to be done from scratch and has nothing but drawbacks.
Oh well.

7. Laaca wrote:

> Microsoft in 2006 specified the new filesystem
Is this relevant for DOS ? And where can I find the spec ?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
Nothing in :-D

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
21998 Postings in 2024 Threads, 395 registered users, 148 users online (0 registered, 148 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum