What will MS do next?

[torrasque]

Found an interesting link on OCNZ.

Apparently, Microsoft is going to start charging manufacturers who use their patented FAT file system, either US$0.25 per unit (eg hard drive), or a gross fee of US$250,000 per company.

Microsoft also claims that it's filed a claim for a patent that the US Patent Office hasn't yet granted, which will extend to products outside the US.

It is apparently offering companies a licence where they pay either a $quarter per unit or a $quarter of a million per manufacturer.

Point is, if Microsoft is going to push and shove manufacturers in Taiwan or China to license its FAT system, it may just end up pushing these manufacturers straight into the arms of other OSes, such as Linux.

torrasque

 

[Archer 007]

Well, I wouldn't care if MS shot itself in the toe.

 

[t92300]

Originally posted by archer_007
Well, I wouldn't care if MS shot itself in the toe.

well some one hand them a bozooka and let them do it properly

 

[Speedo]

Well, if they have the patent then I'd say they have a valid clame to it. Just a little lame that they waited til now, since obviously this would apply to all hard drives (since they can be FAT or NTFS) and floppy disks.

But it's M$, so we can hate 'em for it

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by Speedo
Just a little lame that they waited til now, since obviously this would apply to all hard drives (since they can be FAT or NTFS) and floppy disks.

Maybe the reason why they waited so long is that they first wanted everyone to use their file system because it's free, and when everybody's hooked, they charge you for it.

Next they'll probably charge a few bucks for Explorer, since most pages on the net are made for IE (unfortunately). Although that would be a good thing I guess.

 

[Turner]

Zip disks use FAT too. What about those USB/flash cards? What do they use? Could be quite a lot of money for MS. Because, as you know, they don't have very much money and need as much revenue as they can generate.

Well, I'm familiar enough with Netscape/Mozilla to switch over to that if needed to. Only reason I use IE is for the yahoo companion & google search bar.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by Turner_727
Well, I'm familiar enough with Netscape/Mozilla to switch over to that if needed to. Only reason I use IE is for the yahoo companion & google search bar.

Some pages only works well in IE though, but I guess such a transition to other browsers would be fairly smooth though...

 

[Speedo]

Maybe the reason why they waited so long is that they first wanted everyone to use their file system because it's free, and when everybody's hooked, they charge you for it.

Could be. Wouldn't be above MS.

Personally I switched over to Opera7 at the beginning of this summer... Haven't looked back and have only encountered a total of (maybe) 5 pages that didn't work with it Not to mention since switching, I only have to run Spyboy S&D about once a month and get 3-5 spyware-ish cookies. With IE I was using Sbybot every couple days and having 20-30 of them.

 

[hbdragon88]

Originally posted by funxus

Some pages only works well in IE though, but I guess such a transition to other browsers would be fairly smooth though...

Yeah. Some sites actually detect Opera and refuse to load or do something weird with it. Like in Yahoo Mail, the drop-down menus for "mark" and "spam" don't work in Opera. The Opera forum users said that Yahoo detects Opera and gives it a broken javascript which doesn't work.

Re: the article, oh well, I'm prepared to stop using MS-related products if they start to charge money for them. I now primarily use Opera or Firebird. I use Winamp instead of WMP. I use Trillian instead of MSN Messenger. I can download OpenOffice if I had to. I'm using Sun's Java instead of the Windows Virtual Java Machine.

 

[funxus]

Yes, Opera 7 is much better, there are very few pages I've not been able to view in Opera (since 7), even MS's site works fine. The bank requires me to use IE or Netscape though.

 

[IceBlaZe]

What's the purpose? Opera costs money.
Aren't they just as "evil" as the capitalist M$?

 

[Speedo]

What's the purpose? Opera costs money.
Aren't they just as "evil" as the capitalist M$?

Just use the free version.... unless a little banner is gonna kill you

 

[Grisu]

Originally posted by hbdragon88


Yeah. Some sites actually detect Opera and refuse to load or do something weird with it.

in opera7 you have an option "identify as MSIE 6.0" that should solve that problem. I have encountered only very few pages that didn't work on it.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

What will MS do next? Pry it's greedy little hand deeper in our pockets.

As usual, my offer to torch Redmond remains. Any takers?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Speedo
Well, if they have the patent then I'd say they have a valid clame to it. Just a little lame that they waited til now, since obviously this would apply to all hard drives

Not hard drives anymore. IIRC it is the older FAT16 which they (suposedly) have propriarty rights to. Most hard disks now use a FAT32 system; FAT16 only works up to 2 gigs.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by Speedo


Just use the free version.... unless a little banner is gonna kill you

Well, a banner isn't going to kill me, but I find this quite odd as people use an advertised software to avoid... advertisements.

I don't really have a problem with IE. I only use mozilla when I use the family computer to visit sites I don't want staying in the history.
My parents do not know Mozilla exists on their PC.
Problem is, most of these sites do not look as well as on IE.
Now, while I know it is not Mozilla's problem, but the problem of the coders who do not code in compliance with W3C standards, I don't see why should I pay the price for it.
If I'll ever suffer gravely because of IE, I'll switch. However, in the meanwhile, updating my browser with the latest patches and changing its settings according to security bulletins, in addition to using a good anti-Virus/Firewall software, keeps me on the safe side.

 

[Speedo]

Not hard drives anymore. IIRC it is the older FAT16 which they (suposedly) have propriarty rights to. Most hard disks now use a FAT32 system; FAT16 only works up to 2 gigs.

You may be right. MS's page on the issue though, says "Today, the FAT File system has become the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices. The FAT file system is now supported by a wide variety of operating systems running on all sizes of computers, from servers to personal digital assistants." I'm pretty sure any semi-modern server would be running FAT32.

If any one feels like reading and sorting through the legal-ese, they claim the following US Patents applying to this:
5,579,517
5,745,902
5,758,352
6,286,013
(can be looked up here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm )

Edit: Actually I don't think it would matter anyway Lefty. Even though FAT32 is the modern standard, the drive still could be formatted with FAT16, so I think they still have a claim.

 

[Sodapop]

I'm about 99% sure that the patent covers both FAT16 and FAT32. After all, the difference between the two is so thin it doesn't matter in the end. Anyway, FAT is probably one of the worst filesystem ever designed, but it's simplicity and easy of implementation makes it the most widely used. But anyone who uses FAT on a mission-critical, or needs some basic stability and wants to make sure data loss don't happen, is either an idiot or someone who doesn't know anything about filesystems. First, it offers no security at all, and journaling is another dream. That's why NTFS exists for windows servers (even if again, if you ask me, it's a stupid idea to run a windows server too. you just don't need a GUI and the compatibility windows offers on a server). NTFS is a much much better filesystem than FAT is. However, the fact that it is completely closed-source and relies on a database makes it impossible to re-implement, except for some basic file writting (Linux's implementation allows read-write, but the writting is limited to overwritting a file, without changing the file). And even though NTFS is ages ahead of FAT, it is still ages behind what some people can do with a filesystem (you shouldn't have to defrag a fs these days).

And about Opera, the banner is the most annoying thing that ever existed. I already see tons of flashy advertisements on every page I watch, and it's already hard enough to concentrate on the things I need to read to add another one embeded into the taskbar. Mozilla Firebird > *

 

[hbdragon88]

Originally posted by KaeptnOvi

in opera7 you have an option "identify as MSIE 6.0" that should solve that problem. I have encountered only very few pages that didn't work on it.

I KNOW that, but it's just an identification thingy. There is code that will go further and detect Opera without looking at the identification. Like the Yahoo Mail example I said eariler.

 

[Grisu]

Originally posted by hbdragon88


I KNOW that, but it's just an identification thingy. There is code that will go further and detect Opera without looking at the identification. Like the Yahoo Mail example I said eariler.

Oh, didn't know that, those sneaky guys. But I still don't get what they win by this, I mean all they do is turn potential customers away, no? I no I woulnd't subscribe to anything that doesn't at least tolerate alternative browsers...but I'm getting a bit Off Topic here, sorry.