Windows 95, what a joke

Windows 95, what a joke

Post by d.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1995 04:00:00





)>FYI, ever turn off a DOS machine in the middle of a process?  
)>It comes up just fine.
)
)       Yes, simplicity do have there advantages.  That is, with DOS you
)don't have to worry about messing up the filesystem when you shut it off
)abruptly.

        This is not true, particularly if you run SMARTDRV. Then you must
shutdown properly in DOS, just like Unix and WINNT, for precisely the same
reason, filesystem consistency when you have write-behind caching. You must
run:
        DOS> SMARTDRV /C

        UNIX> sync

        What's the difference ? If you want hi-performance features, like
write-behind caching, you must shutdown the machine properly and flush
the buffer cache...

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke

Post by Sangr » Mon, 01 Jan 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>)       Yes, simplicity do have there advantages.  That is, with DOS you
>)don't have to worry about messing up the filesystem when you shut it off
>)abruptly.

>        This is not true, particularly if you run SMARTDRV. Then you must
>shutdown properly in DOS, just like Unix and WINNT, for precisely the same
>reason, filesystem consistency when you have write-behind caching.

Sorta.
you're right about DOS being very fragile in this manner (actually, not
DOS, but FAT).  And to a lesser degree this is also true for some Unices
(not all).

Under NT on the other hand, using NTFS, you may end up with data loss,
but the file system itself won't be damaged.  One of the "features" of
a transaction based file system, along with having the MFT and it's
mirror located at the start of the drive and at the logical center of
the drive platter.  Basically, giving you four copies of the MFT.

So barring a total destruction of your drive (ie., completely wiping
out the platter or a really serious head crash), NTFS will repair itself
each time it boots.  And the repair is done completely transparently
to the user.

This concept isn't new, it's been used in various Unices for sometime
now.  However, the concept of getting a file system like this to a
machine geared for the "average" (or slightly above average) desktop
system is...

-- Sang.
*************************************************************

*                http://www.inlink.com/~sangria/index.html  *
*           Or   http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html       *

*************************************************************

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke

Post by Anthony D. Tribel » Wed, 03 Jan 1996 04:00:00


: > I suppose you think Fortran77 became obsolete in 1978?

: You must be one of the 4 or 5 people who code in fortran...

I've been using C++ for the last two years and C for the six before that.
I occasionally touch FORTRAN when someone hands me twenty year old code
that they want to run on their PC or Mac.

: ... Because the
: real world would say that it became obsolete before 78.

I only mentioned FORTRAN since the original poster was an engineering
student and there is a lot of scientific and engineering software out
there written in FORTRAN. No one seems to be in a big hurry to rewrite
this software, even though I've seen the same code reimplemented in C run
3 to 4 times faster. It may not be *, but a lot of people get their
work done with it.

Microsoft and WatCom seem to be unusually interested in this old FORTRAN
code. Perhaps there are more users than you think. Or maybe some linux
advocates won't feel the need to downplay FORTRAN once GNU gets it
working, at that point it will become another proudly displayed feature
:-).

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke

Post by Thomas Vil » Thu, 04 Jan 1996 04:00:00


Sangria, can you explain (briefly if possible) the difference between
FAT and NTFS? I'm running NT with FAT.
 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke

Post by Sangr » Fri, 05 Jan 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Sangria, can you explain (briefly if possible) the difference between
>FAT and NTFS? I'm running NT with FAT.

Uhh, briefly?  That's gonna be tough...  :-)

Basically, you can think of FAT as just one huge collection of
unsorted linked lists.  Each link having a pointer to the next
link.  The starting link being stored in what is called a File
Allocation Table at the beginning of the drive.

Because of this simplistic nature, breaking any one of the links
anywhere in this chain results in loss of data, corruption or
just downright pisser of a day.

Further making this ugly is the fact that the total number of
"links" allowed in any partition is 65536 (or there abouts).
That means the size of each "link" is going to be determined
by the size of the partition divided by the number of allowed
links (the result rounded up of course).

So you can concievably have a "link" size of 32K for a slightly
less than 1G partition.  Guess what happens if you save a file
32K + 1Byte.  Yep, you waste two links.

So how is NTFS different?

NTFS can be best thought of as being a relation database table.
Where it's basically a collections of "columns" and "rows".  Each
"column" represents a unique attribute of a file (ie., read-only,
hidden, is a directory, blah, blah...), and each "row" a new
file/directory.

The really nice thing about this is that like a relational table,
each "attribute" can be indexed, and the number of "rows" and
"columns" are not fixed in anyway (well, limited by how big a
single partition can be--16 billion GB, that's more storage than
is available on this entire planet by the way...).  This means,
as you change the file "attributes" by either altering existing
ones or adding new ones, all you do is create a new column for
it (this is how the resource fork for Mac binaries are dealt with
under NTFS volumns--the resource fork becomes just another "column")

Structurally, it's completely different from FAT.  FAT is as I
said, an unsorted linked list.  NTFS is a sorted, indexed, relational
table that uses the B-tree algorithm.

Another major bonus is that FAT stores the critical information at
the start of the partition.  Have a faulty disk medium there, and
you're hosed.  NTFS has it's own form of "critical" information.
It's called the Master File Table (MFT).  The MFT is stored in the
following manner:

The "true" MFT and a copy of it is kept at the beginning of the partition.
An exact mirror image of both the MFT and the backup is then stored
at the logical center of the partition.  This double redundency allows
NT to detect, repair and adapt to media faults without any user intervention.
And since there is two copies, one at the beginning and one at the center,
the odds of having a head crash wipe out these "critical" files is
next to nil (unless you can figure a way to crash one head into two
very different areas of the hard disk platter...).  With the MFT
intact, even in a complete memory dump (aka, Blue Screen Of Death),
NT can rebuild the entire partition image at reboot time *without*
data inconsistency.

Heh... like I said, briefly?  ;-)

If you want more, we can take this to email...

Oh, in case you're wondering:  1) with NTFS you can specify the
"link" size from anywhere between 512 bytes to 4K bytes.  The
larger "link" size is default for larger partition size, as too
small a cluster size results in inefficiencies.  But this is
overridable with the FORMAT command.  2) If you want to change
your NT partition to NTFS, use the CONVERT command (/? for the
help) it'll do it without damaging any existing files.  

Just remember, FAT -> NTFS is a one way deal, to get back,
you'll have to reformat everything.

-- Sang.
*************************************************************

*                http://www.inlink.com/~sangria/index.html  *
*           Or   http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html       *

*************************************************************

 
 
 

1. X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

   >There is no such thing as X Windows.

   I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
   which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
   even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
(assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
right (another 45%, including me). However,
pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

Hope this helps,

Alistair
--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above are my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]

Support the rmgrouping of all silly, unused, or duplicated alt.* groups!

2. How does the Cyrix 6x86 PR200 work?

3. X-Windows (Was - Re: Windows 95, what a joke)

4. c-shell ??

5. Windows 95, what a joke.

6. HELP!! pdflatex/dvipdf

7. X terminal

8. 1Re: Windows 95, what a joke

9. Windows 95, what a joke

10. Windows 95, what a joke.

11. Windows 95, what a joke