Author: Amir Ban
Date: 02:09:31 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 01:35:44, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 00:58:05, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On October 30, 1999 at 18:00:34, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On October 29, 1999 at 21:07:30, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On October 29, 1999 at 19:20:45, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 29, 1999 at 18:33:14, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>It so happens I'm quite familiar with Intel, and there's no truth in what you >>>>>>say. Intel will publish with a product anything that is needed to make you >>>>>>comfortable using it and buying it. That's quite a lot, usually, but they won't >>>>>>tell you anything beyond that. >>>>>> >>>>>>One of the things Intel currently does is a strategic effort to reinvent PC >>>>>>architectire from an open standard into something Intel-proprietary. The >>>>>>so-called "firmware hub", e.g., will replace the old BIOS, and the LPC bus >>>>>>replaces the ISA bus. The specifications are secret or restricted to Intel >>>>>>partners. If Intel succeeds in this, competitors like AMD will have a real >>>>>>problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>Microsoft is doing something similar in the past few years. They made DOS into >>>>>>the most successful OS ever by making it totally open and attracting third-party >>>>>>developers, who really made DOS successful. Microsoft now thinks that those >>>>>>third-party developers are a nuisance and they are closing many specifications. >>>>>>For example, NTFS (the NT file-system) is not documented. >>>>> >>>>>David A. Solomon >>>>>"Inside Windows NT / Second edition" >>>>>Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington, USA 1998 >>>>>ISBN 1-57231-677-2 >>>>>Chapter 9 "Windows NT File System (NTFS)" >>>>> >>>> >>>>Does it give the file-system data structures ? >>>> >>>>Maybe I'm wrong about this. However, my company cooperates with Microsoft and at >>>>some point where one way to do something was to manipulate NTFS structures >>>>directly, Microsoft people told us to forget it since Microsoft won't disclose >>>>this information. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>>I think that you can get MS to give out enough information that you can write >>>your own IFS (installable file system), but not enough to tinker with NTFS, e.g. >>>my understanding is like Amir's, not Eugene's. >>> >>>I say this as someone who used to work at an optical storage VAR that was >>>experienced at developing drivers for Sun boxes and was specifically interested >>>in developing drivers for NT as well. >>> >>>Dave >> >>There are some 3rd party defragmenters for NTFS. Actually, I believe that prior >>to w2k *all* NTFS defragmenters were non-MS. >> >>Eugene > >By tinker, I meant going deeper than the API layer that is provided. > >Dave ... or rely on reverse-engineering. If you need to do that this means the specification is closed. Reverse-engineering is difficult & risky because you never know which crucial part you are missing, and Microsoft can pull the rug from under you whenever it wants to. Few companies will base a serious project on information obtained this way. It's legally risky, too. In Stac vs. Microsoft, Microsoft won a counter-suit against Stac because Stac reverse-engineered the DOS bootstrap code. Amir
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.