From: Digest To: "OS/2GenAu Digest" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:40 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 1608 Reply-To: X-List-Unsubscribe: www.os2site.com/list/ ************************************************** Wednesday 20 February 2008 Number 1608 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? : Ed Durrant 2 Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? : Paul Smedley" 3 Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? : Ed Durrant 4 Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? : Voytek Eymont" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:12:36 +1100 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? Peter Moylan wrote: > On 19/02/08 19:12, Ian Manners wrote: > >> MS only seem to be as good as the rare developer they employ, like >> when the HPFS, HPFS386 driver was developed. Bugger knows why they >> didnt use something similiar for WinNT back then. > > They did! I was successfully using HPFS with NT, and it worked > perfectly well. Then they brought out a version of NT where the > installer, if it found HPFS on any partition, would prompt with "OS/2 > detected. Delete?" If you passed that barrier, you got to one where it > said "Unknown file system detected. Format this partition?" Even on that > version, though, you could install the HPFS driver. I used to keep a > copy of the driver (pinball.sys) on my FTP server, for the benefit of > Windows people who wanted a better file system. It wasn't until the > post-NT versions of Windows that the HPFS driver would no longer work. > I have installed and used the HPFS support on Windows 2000 and XP - files are on Hobbes I think. The original poster referred to HPFS386 however and that never ran on any Windows platform as far as I know. Cheers/2 Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:12:16 +1030 From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? Hi Ed, On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:12:36 +1100 Ed Durrant wrote: > The original poster referred to HPFS386 however and that >never ran on any Windows platform as far as I know. Yes - but wasn't HPFS386 claimed to be written by MS - hence the exhorbitant licensing fee on WS/WSEB for HPFS386.... Cheers, Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:13:33 +1100 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? Paul Smedley wrote: > Hi Ed, > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:12:36 +1100 > Ed Durrant wrote: >> The original poster referred to HPFS386 however and that never ran on >> any Windows platform as far as I know. > > Yes - but wasn't HPFS386 claimed to be written by MS - hence the > exhorbitant licensing fee on WS/WSEB for HPFS386.... > > Cheers, > > Paul. Correct, but AFAIK MS wrote (or adapted from someone elses code) the base HPFS as well. HPFS386 is really part of Lan Server rather than the actual file system - it's an add-on to the HPFS 386 File system to provide user ACLs in LAN shares. So either way - MS thought NTFS would be better as this was then integrated. Shame it always has to be defragmented on a regular basis, whereas HPFS (or HPFS386) doesn't. Cheers/2 Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:24:03 +1100 (EST) From: "Voytek Eymont" Subject: Re: Is Microsoft/Yahoo about Windows' failure as a top server platform? > Paul Smedley wrote: > Correct, but AFAIK MS wrote (or adapted from someone elses code) the > base HPFS as well. HPFS386 is really part of Lan Server rather than the > actual file system - it's an add-on to the HPFS 386 File system to provide > user ACLs in LAN shares. > > So either way - MS thought NTFS would be better as this was then > integrated. Shame it always has to be defragmented on a regular basis, > whereas HPFS (or HPFS386) doesn't. yes, some years ago, I've defragged my HPFS server HD, after about 2 or maybe more years in service as internet mail/web server, the actual fragmentation was next to nothing, practically non existant -- Voytek ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------