Re:Really Atari ST?
by colejohnson66 on Tuesday September 22, 2020 @09:02AM
(#24553919)
I didn’t grow up with floppies, so pardon my ignorance, but two questions: (1) which FAT? I figure it can’t be FAT32, but that still leaves FAT12 and FAT16, both of which Microsoft helped develop. And (2) since Microsoft helped develop it, were they just not following their own spec? Because that doesn’t make sense (not that you’re wrong).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
FAT afaik is also known as FAT12 - nice explanation in the wiki over the differences and some history aspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_the_FAT_file_system
Of course MS didn't care about their 'standard'. They assumed they're the only ones using it and/or don't really care about breaking other systems.
Sometimes they broke other systems on purpose, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code.
The other direction, too: "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run!"
MS-DOS was also not the only DOS on the market. DR-DOS was very popular at the time of the Atari ST. As far as I know DR-DOS also followed the published specification and Digital Research (DR) was Microsoft's biggest competition. Atari also used Digital Reasearch's GEM as their "desktop" GUI. GEM was a direct competitor to Microsoft's new Macintosh-killer product called "Windows". CorelDraw and WordPerfect used GEM, MS Word and MS Excel used Windows.
Draw your conclusions.