|
|
 The Future of the OS and Computing - Page 4
|
 |
|
Register
|
|
  |
• In the news...
| |
|
 Can scientists make a
space elevator?  Wonder: The benefits of a fully realized elevator would make carrying people and goods into space cheaper, easier and safer. Hotels
for space tourist?
|
Water Found On The Moon Science: Since man first touched the moon and brought pieces of it back to Earth, scientists have thought that the lunar surface was bone dry. New observations.
|
|
 The Future of the OS and Computing
  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message   |
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Level 27: Master Sword
Posts: 4153Timestamp: Wed Jun 11, 08 1:10 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
|   |
|
| Skv012a wrote: | Mac OS is just too simplistic for me. As far as Vista, I couldn't agree more. It was a pain in the ass to put XP Tablet on my convertible that came with Vista (unless I bought a weaker model), but I did so without hesitation to avoid most of the rediculous issues it brings.
Regarding majority of mac users, they're people who say "I don't/don't want to know sht about computers, but I must own one and use one, somehow" (and yes, they're the ones who kinda suck at that one let alone any other). Those annoy me to the bone with their ignorance. If its someone who is truly unable to learn how to use a comp properly, even the mac os, then its a blessing for them, but not for the rest of the crowd. Furthermore, people who have SO much money they'd willingly tank it into an ipod with 3 features vs 30 of any other player of = value or a comp following the same pattern. |
I have to disagree. Although most people don't know jack shit, and buy a Mac because "it's easier", OS X is also UNIX-based. Which means the Terminal is actually useful, and is not just an afterthought like it is in XP/Vista.
Most computer-tards I know still wouldn't dream of switching to OS X, even if they ran it on one of their current computers. They're so complacent with their Windows [insert version here] that they'll probably just keep on buying MS products, and not even think of buying/downloading another OS.
Personally though, I still think Linux beats all. But the lack of industry activity and games really kills it.
Also, regarding Snow Leopard... Who the fuck is going to buy 16 TB of RAM? I could understand if it's a supercomputer, or it's doing super ridiculous equations, but it shouldn't be touted as one of their big features.
And ZFS support will only be in the server line of 10.6.
Oh. And WinFS died. There was an interview with the head developer of it, and he said it was dropped.
One more feature never to see the light of day...
EDIT: Leak'd screenies show that 10.6 will ONLY INSTALL ON AN INTEL PROCESSOR.
___
| BOATS wrote: | | My penis explodes with delight you ignorant chicken fucker. |
|
|
|
|
BigNig
Level 43: Monk
Posts: 20776Timestamp: Wed Jun 11, 08 3:09 AM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
Bumping this thread after reading that Apple has confirmed the next version of OS X - Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard".
Personally, I think that's a really retarded name, but at the same time, they're running out of big cat names...they really need to stop using the development codenames to refer to the final builds.
What's interesting about 10.6 is that it adds support for ZFS (which nerds are freaking out about, and normal people are WTFing about...after all, we need to worry about having 16EB sized volumes right now when we've barely hit the 1.5-2TB mark), officially turns Mac OS X into a full 64-bit operating system, and due to the 64-bit kernel, allows for a physical maximum limit of 16TB of RAM (the highest the current Mac Pro supports as of 2008 is 32GB, not to mention since the current version of Mac OS X, 10.5/Leopard is a hybrid 32/64-bit OS, the kernel still being 32-bit, there is still a much smaller limit than that of a fully 64-bit OS).
What's more is that the rumor mill has produced a little tidbit of info that says that Apple will be officially killing support for all PowerPC processor-based Macs with this version, although I don't personally think so. Based on the way the Intel transition's gone so far, I figure that the next version of Mac OS X will kill support for all G4-based Macs, with version 10.7 finally truly completing the transition.
And in EVEN MOAR news, apparently Windows 7 (based off of the NT line, and where the hell is my WinFS, Microsoft?) is going to include support for mounting and performing operations on a virtual hard disk image (something that Mac OS X has a leg up on with its .dmg format). Interesting that it took them this long. Oh well. And sometime in the third quarter of this year, get ready to fire up your torrent machines, because word is that the alpha builds that incorporate changes to the GUI hit then, betas hit sometime afterward, with Windows 7 going RTM in the second half of '09.
___
 ![]()
| Quote: | | I've always loved bugs. Used to catch caterpillars and train them to Lvl 10 so they evolved into Butterfies and Moths. |
|
|
|
|
|
Skv012a
Level 7: Takedown
Posts: 107Timestamp: Tue May 13, 08 7:01 AM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
Mac OS is just too simplistic for me. As far as Vista, I couldn't agree more. It was a pain in the ass to put XP Tablet on my convertible that came with Vista (unless I bought a weaker model), but I did so without hesitation to avoid most of the rediculous issues it brings.
Regarding majority of mac users, they're people who say "I don't/don't want to know sht about computers, but I must own one and use one, somehow" (and yes, they're the ones who kinda suck at that one let alone any other). Those annoy me to the bone with their ignorance. If its someone who is truly unable to learn how to use a comp properly, even the mac os, then its a blessing for them, but not for the rest of the crowd. Furthermore, people who have SO much money they'd willingly tank it into an ipod with 3 features vs 30 of any other player of = value or a comp following the same pattern.
___
PMs are my pet peeve hence why I bother putting my IM IDs in my profile. |
|
|
|
|
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Level 27: Master Sword
Posts: 4153Timestamp: Tue May 13, 08 5:33 AM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
| Skv012a wrote: | Well, IF mac rises to popularity and mic goes out of business, then the ratio between smart-linux, mediocre-win, and retards-osx will simply flatten out and the masses will distribute themselves between 2 major OSes. Interesting scenario. Given the number of fairly stupid people in US who've been feeding Apple's craptastic products for years, could be somewhat likely... not.
I just hope that mic will make win less power hungry and keep it between lin and x in terms of functionality and user-friendliness. Also expand and improve the mobile versions. |
If there's been anyone who's been being fed craptastic products, it's the people who've been buying Vista (150 bucks down the drain... w00t). Sure, it's not all bad (it's SO PURTY), but it's supposed to be an upgrade, not a RAM waster (500-700 MB RAM for an idle desktop with 2-5 gadgets running on Vista). The only thing I can think of that's worth buying Vista for is DX10, and apparently that can be hacked to work on XP. And you shouldn't be reluctant to upgrade anyway... It should be a no-brainer... At least, for anything but Vista.
That being said, I'm one of those "retards-osx" people, and I'll admit that there are a lot of true OS X retards, who keep going on and on about how Macs > PCs. There are Windows bastards out there too however that couldn't switch OSes for their lives; they're too attached to Windows and the "Windows Experience". These bastards tend to be the people who give Apple and Linux shit, just because they're reluctant to try anything new.
___
| BOATS wrote: | | My penis explodes with delight you ignorant chicken fucker. |
|
|
|
|
|
Skv012a
Level 7: Takedown
Posts: 107Timestamp: Mon May 12, 08 10:38 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
Well, IF mac rises to popularity and mic goes out of business, then the ratio between smart-linux, mediocre-win, and retards-osx will simply flatten out and the masses will distribute themselves between 2 major OSes. Interesting scenario. Given the number of fairly stupid people in US who've been feeding Apple's craptastic products for years, could be somewhat likely... not.
I just hope that mic will make win less power hungry and keep it between lin and x in terms of functionality and user-friendliness. Also expand and improve the mobile versions.
___
PMs are my pet peeve hence why I bother putting my IM IDs in my profile. |
|
|
|
|
BigNig
Level 43: Monk
Posts: 20776Timestamp: Sun May 04, 08 5:57 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
| Jumpin' Jack Flash wrote: | Hehe. You're running OSX86 aren't you? You boss-turd.
And a command line really turns off most people. Plus... No pr0n.
What I meant by Apple controlling their hardware market was something like this; basically, you can't change any parts in an Apple machine. Say you wanted an iMac (standard Apple desktop computer). The cheapest one ($1 199.99) comes with an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128 MB of memory. If you wanted, say, a NVIDIA GeForce 8800, you'd need to cough up $700 more for just a video card. No, you can't just ask for a better video card. I've tried. |
No pron. D:
And yeah, that's a problem. You have to go to Apple and pay outrageous amounts of money for hardware.
___
![]()
| Quote: | | I've always loved bugs. Used to catch caterpillars and train them to Lvl 10 so they evolved into Butterfies and Moths. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Level 27: Master Sword
Posts: 4153Timestamp: Sun May 04, 08 5:39 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
| BigNig wrote: | | Jumpin' Jack Flash wrote: | Quite the lengthy statement.
One of the things I hate about every OS is hardware support. Well, except on Linux usually.
On Windows, once you reinstall, you need to get drivers for EVERYTHING. Video card, sometimes your processor, your printer, etc. It's ridiculous. And if you're running Vista, your hardware may not even work. Tough shit.
On OS X, they control their own hardware market. That's fine and dandy, but you can't really control your hardware, and they are CONSTANTLY coming out with new models of computers.
Not to mention Macs use GPT, which is a constant source of headaches for me.
Linux is definitely my favorite OS because you have ALOT of control over your stuff. From minimum fan speed to processor speed, to video card drivers, resolution (which is always helpful lol), and you DON'T need to download drivers (provided you're not running exotic hardware and you're using a do-it-for-you Linux distro).
And what you said about system requirements also struck a chord with me; Windows has only been getting more and more resource hungry. Although it really hasn't been a problem for OS X, as Apple controls the hardware market, they do make it harder on themselves in a few ways. If a bug pops up on specific hardware, like a bug in the Intel GMA 950 drivers, it'll target a really large group of people, as Apple's locked themselves into a bit of a hardware prison.
Linux, once again, seems to be the exception. Although most distros/flavors of Linux need around 300 MB of RAM, there are flavors made specifically for lower specced computers, such as Damn Small Linux (24 MB of RAM, and 50 MB of HD MINIMUM) that are nice if you haven't bought a computer in 10-15 years. |
With Apple, the only way you're controlling the hardware is if you buy a Mac Pro, and most people aren't going to want to plunk down $2700 for a machine that's meant for enthusiasts and businesses, anyway.
The GPT is annoying at times for me when it comes to OSX86, mainly because BIOSes don't accept anything but an MBR, and by default, most OSX86 installations accidentally select GUID Partition Table for you...gah.
Linux is fun...there are distros out there that you can boot using only two floppies, granted, you have nothing but a command line, but it's still a perfectly functional OS. |
Hehe. You're running OSX86 aren't you? You boss-turd.
And a command line really turns off most people. Plus... No pr0n.
What I meant by Apple controlling their hardware market was something like this; basically, you can't change any parts in an Apple machine. Say you wanted an iMac (standard Apple desktop computer). The cheapest one ($1 199.99) comes with an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128 MB of memory. If you wanted, say, a NVIDIA GeForce 8800, you'd need to cough up $700 more for just a video card. No, you can't just ask for a better video card. I've tried.
___
| BOATS wrote: | | My penis explodes with delight you ignorant chicken fucker. |
|
|
|
|
|
BigNig
Level 43: Monk
Posts: 20776Timestamp: Sun May 04, 08 5:28 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
| Jumpin' Jack Flash wrote: | Quite the lengthy statement.
One of the things I hate about every OS is hardware support. Well, except on Linux usually.
On Windows, once you reinstall, you need to get drivers for EVERYTHING. Video card, sometimes your processor, your printer, etc. It's ridiculous. And if you're running Vista, your hardware may not even work. Tough shit.
On OS X, they control their own hardware market. That's fine and dandy, but you can't really control your hardware, and they are CONSTANTLY coming out with new models of computers.
Not to mention Macs use GPT, which is a constant source of headaches for me.
Linux is definitely my favorite OS because you have ALOT of control over your stuff. From minimum fan speed to processor speed, to video card drivers, resolution (which is always helpful lol), and you DON'T need to download drivers (provided you're not running exotic hardware and you're using a do-it-for-you Linux distro).
And what you said about system requirements also struck a chord with me; Windows has only been getting more and more resource hungry. Although it really hasn't been a problem for OS X, as Apple controls the hardware market, they do make it harder on themselves in a few ways. If a bug pops up on specific hardware, like a bug in the Intel GMA 950 drivers, it'll target a really large group of people, as Apple's locked themselves into a bit of a hardware prison.
Linux, once again, seems to be the exception. Although most distros/flavors of Linux need around 300 MB of RAM, there are flavors made specifically for lower specced computers, such as Damn Small Linux (24 MB of RAM, and 50 MB of HD MINIMUM) that are nice if you haven't bought a computer in 10-15 years. |
With Apple, the only way you're controlling the hardware is if you buy a Mac Pro, and most people aren't going to want to plunk down $2700 for a machine that's meant for enthusiasts and businesses, anyway.
The GPT is annoying at times for me when it comes to OSX86, mainly because BIOSes don't accept anything but an MBR, and by default, most OSX86 installations accidentally select GUID Partition Table for you...gah.
Linux is fun...there are distros out there that you can boot using only two floppies, granted, you have nothing but a command line, but it's still a perfectly functional OS.
___
![]()
| Quote: | | I've always loved bugs. Used to catch caterpillars and train them to Lvl 10 so they evolved into Butterfies and Moths. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Level 27: Master Sword
Posts: 4153Timestamp: Sun May 04, 08 5:23 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
| BigNig wrote: | Ah, a thread I can get into.
First of all, Microsoft only has a monopoly with Windows because way before, everyone was using CP/M, which then evolved into the various flavors of DOS, and when Microsoft made MS-DOS, everyone lieked it, so of course, when the first DOS-based Windows came out with full compatibility for 8-bit and 16-bit programs, everyone was cool with it (technically Windows 1.0, which looked like DOS on crack, but Windows didn't truly catch on until 3.0/3.1 in May of 1990). As Windows evolved, everyone just went along with it, because Windows supported the most hardware, and the amount of applications you could find was next to infinite. However, the hardware support was a double-edged sword - while you could install Windows on any i386-based PC, driver issues could arise, and system stability as a result, suffered (lol, DLL hell). Also, XP and especially Vista, are system resource hogs, Vista often taking up 400-500MB of your RAM while idle.
Apple was the first company to come out with a GUI-based operating system for the masses, yes. But the problem with the old System was stability...with no memory protection, if an application screwed up, no matter what, you would have to reboot the computer (a notable problem with Windows 9x as well, which often caused BSODs). The only reasons OS X is as stable as it is today is because with only 4% of the market share, there's no real viruses targeted at the OS X platform, it's based off of UNIX, an OS notable for its long uptimes and stability, and, since OS X is (normally, except if you're using OSX86) locked to a specific set of hardware, driver issues are next to nonexistent, leading to fast boot times, excellent stability, and potential for long uptimes.
Linux...what an interesting story there. What started out as a UNIX clone ended up become the most popular non-Microsoft/Apple operating system out there, and currently powers about 65% of the internet. I have high hopes for Linux, as there is quite the dedicated user base, who continues to develop drivers and whatnot for the OS.
My problem with this generation of OSes is mainly size and requirements to run. A default Vista install (Home Premium, mind you) takes up 10-15 GB and requires a video card with at least 128MB of dedicated VRAM in order to get Aero running (or a compatible 64MB VRAM card with also 1GB of RAM or moar), and really, Aero isn't all that great to me...it's pretty, but Vista also brought a host of compatibility issues, the shitty UAC, and overall, it feels a lot slower than XP to me. My problems with Leopard are mainly the uppity user base (lol, lok at me, i so cool bcuz i haev a mac which iz so much bettar then ur shity windoze pc lol/unwarranted self-importance), the lack of certain programs that I liek to use, and although it's much smaller than Vista, still requires 6-8GB for a basic install (Tiger took up anywhere from 3-5GB), and OS X isn't as stable as the Apple fanboys would like to think-there's still some kinks that could be worked out.
The future of the operating system looks quite interesting. Microsoft is touting Windows 7 (based off of NT nomenclature, XP was NT5, Vista is NT6) as one of the best things ever with its MinWin kernel that weighs in at about 25MB, compared to Vista's 4GB kernel, and XP's 500MB kernel. And Microsoft better deliver with WinFS. OS X still has room for improvement as well, and it will be interesting to see what Apple does with that. My hopes are that certain requirements are lessened (mainly video card and RAM, although I doubt it) so that you won't have to go out and buy new hardware just to run a new OS. I'm also very intrigued with Apple, as you know, I'm an OSX86 user, running Leopard on an AMD Dell system, and it will be interesting to see if Jobs will evar go back to Mac clones (I doubt it, though), although people will just continue to use OSX86 if he never does (which he probably won't). And the claim that OS X will become the most used and Windows will be eradicated is BS in my opinion, because with the downfall of Windows, (for example) AMD would basically be out of business, because Apple doesn't want to waste time rewriting the OS X kernel for the AMD processor set (although with OSX86, the work's basically already been done for them), and then the only computer-related companies that would be making a significant profit would be Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, Creative Labs, Apple, etc., etc. Not to mention, most devlopers would have to spend a ton of money buying new developer's kits and whatnot for the Apple platform, which most companies would not want to do, but would do for the sake of money. So I don't see Windows/Microsoft going bye-bye any time soon.
And as for hardware, I'm interested to see if a full transition to the 64-bit architecture will be happening any time soon, considering we've already hit the 32-bit architecture's physical memory limit of 4GB. And I'm also interested in seeing the evolution of the file system and boot record, because the MBR can only address partitions/volumes up to 2TB, and GUID partitions are probably going to supersede the MBR, and file systems, since they will have to be rewritten to address larger and larger amounts of hard drive space, although that probably won't happen in my lifetime, considering NTFS has a volume limit of 16TB, HFS+ with a limit of 16EB, and the ext3 file system with a limit of 32TB.
(Sorry aboot the long answer, I just love operating systems...the topic is just so interesting to me and I have a lot to say.) |
Quite the lengthy statement.
One of the things I hate about every OS is hardware support. Well, except on Linux usually.
On Windows, once you reinstall, you need to get drivers for EVERYTHING. Video card, sometimes your processor, your printer, etc. It's ridiculous. And if you're running Vista, your hardware may not even work. Tough shit.
On OS X, they control their own hardware market. That's fine and dandy, but you can't really control your hardware, and they are CONSTANTLY coming out with new models of computers.
Not to mention Macs use GPT, which is a constant source of headaches for me.
Linux is definitely my favorite OS because you have ALOT of control over your stuff. From minimum fan speed to processor speed, to video card drivers, resolution (which is always helpful lol), and you DON'T need to download drivers (provided you're not running exotic hardware and you're using a do-it-for-you Linux distro).
And what you said about system requirements also struck a chord with me; Windows has only been getting more and more resource hungry. Although it really hasn't been a problem for OS X, as Apple controls the hardware market, they do make it harder on themselves in a few ways. If a bug pops up on specific hardware, like a bug in the Intel GMA 950 drivers, it'll target a really large group of people, as Apple's locked themselves into a bit of a hardware prison.
Linux, once again, seems to be the exception. Although most distros/flavors of Linux need around 300 MB of RAM, there are flavors made specifically for lower specced computers, such as Damn Small Linux (24 MB of RAM, and 50 MB of HD MINIMUM) that are nice if you haven't bought a computer in 10-15 years.
___
| BOATS wrote: | | My penis explodes with delight you ignorant chicken fucker. |
|
|
|
|
|
BigNig
Level 43: Monk
Posts: 20776Timestamp: Sun May 04, 08 4:38 PM
|
| Post URL: The Future of the OS and Computing
| |
|
Ah, a thread I can get into.
First of all, Microsoft only has a monopoly with Windows because way before, everyone was using CP/M, which then evolved into the various flavors of DOS, and when Microsoft made MS-DOS, everyone lieked it, so of course, when the first DOS-based Windows came out with full compatibility for 8-bit and 16-bit programs, everyone was cool with it (technically Windows 1.0, which looked like DOS on acid, but Windows didn't truly catch on until 3.0/3.1 in May of 1990). As Windows evolved, everyone just went along with it, because Windows supported the most hardware, and the amount of applications you could find was next to infinite. However, the hardware support was a double-edged sword - while you could install Windows on any i386-based PC (now referred to as the x86 architecture that we all know and love), driver issues could arise, and system stability as a result, suffered (lol, DLL hell in the 9x series). Windows did take an interesting turn when the 9x/DOS-based system was superseded by the NT line (which is superior, but still sucky), which brought the magic of NTFS into everyone's homes. Also, XP and especially Vista, are system resource hogs, Vista often taking up 400-500MB of your RAM while idle. And I needn't mention Windows Me *shivers*.
Apple was the first company to come out with a GUI-based operating system for the masses, yes. But the problem with the old System was stability...with no memory protection, if an application screwed up, no matter what, you would have to reboot the computer (a notable problem with Windows 9x as well, which often caused BSODs), not to mention the sudden dropping of support for Motorola 68k-based processors starting with System 8.0 due to the switch to the PowerPC architecture. System 9 wasn't that notable in my opinion-it was just System 8 on steroids. OS X 10.0/10.1...bad. Unstable. Stability really wasn't delivered until 10.2 (affectionately known as Jaguar). The only reasons OS X is as stable as it is today is because with only 4% of the market share, there's no real viruses targeted at the OS X platform, it's based off of UNIX, an OS notable for its long uptimes and stability, and, since OS X is (normally, except if you're using OSX86) locked to a specific set of hardware, driver issues are next to nonexistent, leading to fast boot times, excellent stability, and potential for long uptimes.
Linux...what an interesting story there. What started out as a UNIX clone ended up become the most popular non-Microsoft/Apple operating system out there, and currently powers about 65% of the internet. I have high hopes for Linux, as there is quite the dedicated user base, who continues to develop drivers and whatnot for the OS.
My problem with this generation of OSes is mainly size and requirements to run. A default Vista install (Home Premium, mind you) takes up 10-15 GB and requires a video card with at least 128MB of dedicated VRAM in order to get Aero running (or a compatible 64MB VRAM card with also 1GB of RAM or moar), and really, Aero isn't all that great to me...it's pretty, but Vista also brought a host of compatibility issues, the shitty UAC, and overall, it feels a lot slower than XP to me. My problems with Leopard are mainly the uppity user base (lol, lok at me, i so cool bcuz i haev a mac which iz so much bettar then ur shity windoze pc lol/unwarranted self-importance), the lack of certain programs that I liek to use, and although it's much smaller than Vista, still requires 6-8GB for a basic install (Tiger took up anywhere from 3-5GB), and OS X isn't as stable as the Apple fanboys would like to think-there's still some kinks that could be worked out.
The future of the operating system looks quite interesting. Microsoft is touting Windows 7 (based off of NT nomenclature, XP was NT5, Vista is NT6) as one of the best things ever with its MinWin kernel that weighs in at about 25MB, compared to Vista's 4GB kernel, and XP's 500MB kernel. And Microsoft better deliver with WinFS. OS X still has room for improvement as well, and it will be interesting to see what Apple does with that. My hopes are that certain requirements are lessened (mainly video card and RAM, although I doubt it) so that you won't have to go out and buy new hardware just to run a new OS. I'm also very intrigued with Apple, as you know, I'm an OSX86 user, running Leopard on an AMD Dell system, and it will be interesting to see if Jobs will evar go back to Mac clones (I doubt it, though), although people will just continue to use OSX86 if he never does (which he probably won't). And the claim that OS X will become the most used and Windows will be eradicated is BS in my opinion, because with the downfall of Windows, (for example) AMD would basically be out of business, because Apple doesn't want to waste time rewriting the OS X kernel for the AMD processor set (although with OSX86, the work's basically already been done for them), and then the only computer-related companies that would be making a significant profit would be Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, Creative Labs, Apple, etc., etc. Not to mention, most developers would have to spend a ton of money buying new developer's kits and whatnot for the Apple platform, which most companies would not want to do, but would do for the sake of money. So I don't see Windows/Microsoft going bye-bye any time soon.
And as for hardware, I'm interested to see if a full transition to the 64-bit architecture will be happening any time soon, considering we've already hit the 32-bit architecture's physical memory limit of 4GB. And I'm also interested in seeing the evolution of the file system and boot record, because the MBR can only address partitions/volumes up to 2TB, and GUID partitions are probably going to supersede the MBR, and file systems, since they will have to be rewritten to address larger and larger amounts of hard drive space, although that probably won't happen in my lifetime, considering NTFS has a volume limit of 16TB, HFS+ with a limit of 16EB, and the ext3 file system with a limit of 32TB.
(Sorry aboot the long answer, I just love operating systems...the topic is just so interesting to me and I have a lot to say.)
___
![]()
| Quote: | | I've always loved bugs. Used to catch caterpillars and train them to Lvl 10 so they evolved into Butterfies and Moths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Listed below are more topics that you may be interested in...
|
 |
 Featured Topics |
Replies |
Views |
 |
| 0 |
123 |
|
| 0 |
118 |
|
| 0 |
109 |
|
| 0 |
134 |
|
| 0 |
147 |
|
| 0 |
141 |
|
| 0 |
139 |
|
| 0 |
167 |
|
| 0 |
201 |
|
| 0 |
152 |
|
|
|
| |
|
• 
• 
