Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> I do not understand btw why do they use FAT filesystem nowadays. You have to
> pay to Microsoft, plus the filesystem itself is rubbish based on 20 year old
> technology with no recovery option. 
Actually it's quite similar to some over 30 years ago. Before Microsoft 
bought their DOS 1.0, so I suspect there is something broken about the 
patent system.  Yes it is poor. I never understood people putting FAT32 
on NT rather than NTFS. DOS (1980)  was very like CP/M  (1977) up till 
version 2.1 approx.

 "86-DOS had a command structure and application programming interface 
that imitated that of Digital Research's (abbreviated DR or DRI) CP/M 
operating system, which made it easy to port programs from the latter. 
The system was purchased by Microsoft and developed further as PC-DOS 
and MS-DOS."

When MS, MM, SD cards and CF was smaller (I have 4M to 32M cards) a 
better file system was a problem due to overhead. Ext3 didn't exist and 
NTFS had nearly 20Mbyte overhead.
> People should start using a modern
> journaling filesystem for these large flash disks.
Which one? 
>  I know, FAT is better suit to small micros as there is no need to calculate too much, however, if
> a mibile phone can play 3D games and if a digital camcorder can include
> useless picture effects then they could implement a proper filesystem driver
> too.
>   
Agreed, but:
You have to supply the filesystem for Windows too, if using some 
alternate for your Camera. My XP has ext 2 support  seamlessly working, 
but  ext2 is  IMO poorer than 1994 NTFS and  HPFS (OS/2).  Calculation I 
don't think is the issue. I think availability of  source code, and low 
RAM/ROM footprint was more likely issues.

I agree broadly, but I'm not clear what the viable alternative was or is.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist