Why one OS VS another isn't over played here

[gore]

Heh, I'm really thinking about whacking that into Cosmos. It deal much more with Philosophy than tyechnology. I remember reading that thinking "Wow, this is kind of cool, and I relate with it".

Also note, he's not in any way Bashing Windows. He's pointing out the WHY of what he loves. He doesn't bash anything. He even poits out that Windows NT did make his life easier in some respects. But the part of him in the inside, he still wanted what he had always loved.

I think it's a damn good peice. No bashing, no flames, just pure honesty.

[RoadClosed]

Well I can, what I can't imagine is it on Fat32, because Doom 3 only runs on Windows 2000 and XP, and I don't know anyone using Fat anything for a file system.

That's true. I have never seen a box formatted with FAT32 except the one's I built. And the only reason I used FAT was because of costly maintenance tools that weren't supported in NTFS at the time.

As for linux only having 1 percent fragmentation? I know alot of books say that. I say however most are full of it because they were claiming it before any decent file systems came out. Just think about how the core of a file system works. Only recently has linux evolved but there is a cost. Performance. That's the catch. If your files become too fragmented like Windows will do in a month or two; there is a performance hit. But a files system designed to handle fragmentation also takes a performance hit. So depending on whats going on under the hood who cares? What is WORSE about windows is the registry. But without it, keeping track of software configs would be difficult. It's like a "package" manager in that sense. And is almost in itself a mini file system.