[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 20/12/10 12:22, Gordon Henderson wrote:
And do you know of anyone that would be happy with 8+3 on a USB - the irony being that Tom Tom could probably have modified their requirements so the Tom Tom would work with 8+3 and avoided any requirement to pay MS. But they obviously worked out it was cheaper to pay MS than expect their programmers to be able to remember/cope with it/somehow backdate all those ones already sold with fat32 on out there.On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, tom wrote:On 20/12/10 11:50, Gordon Henderson wrote:Google for Tom Tom Fat and save on heating with the boiling blood of righteous indignation this winter.On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Grant Sewell wrote:So how is it that I can create a FAT32 filesystem without hassle undermost Linux systems? In order to play MP3s or watch DVDs I have to jumpthrough hoops, but I seem to be able to create Microsoft-ownedfilesystems without having to jump through any hoops or pay anybody anymoney.AIUI - FATxxx is so "open" and widely adopted that it's patents aren't that enforcable, but what MS does keep a tight grip on is the extended filename mechanism that's an extension to FAT.. So if you're happy with uppercase 8+3 filenames, then feel free, but if you want nice mixed case long filenames then pay MS...Of-course IANAL ...I remember it well - and my understanding is that it was the long-filename extensions that they were penalised for..But maybe I need to read it again. Gordon
Could you cope with using a FAT disk to write to? Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq