Mac users' elitism

[Beansprout]

Oh and I guess I should really apologise for my turn of phrase (my work mates once called me a pony-tailed gay when I happened to bring in an iBook to work - I found it amusing as I am actually bald and straight!). Some of you might not have found it so amusing.

I didn't find it amusing at all. This is a Serious Internet Debate. Unto Hell go ye!




Edit: *cuts hair*

 

[alexakasloth]

Edit: *cuts hair*

*glues pony tail back on*

You're not getting away that fast!

 

[NathanE]

We didn't say that it doesn't get fragmented, Mac OS X doesn't take as much as a performance hit by running on a fragmented hard drive.

Neither does NTFS though? By all intents and purposes, NTFS could be described as being "fragmentation resistant". The problem is that Mac users seem to barely know that NTFS exists and continue using their age old FAT32 rants.

 

[Visage]

Wouldnt there be a big difference in performance if the two OS had different patterns of typical file size?

If, for example, a file space was allocated in 32k chunks (im pulling these figures out of my backside, but they're only illustrative), and Mac OS had lots of small (sub 32k) files, then each file access would invilve one FAT read.

But if an OS had lots of files larger than the chunk size then more reads would be required.

I guess what Im asking is whether we're comparing apples with oranges. If Mac OS has lots of small config files then each time ytou read one you're only going to ever need one FAT read. If you're talking about using the same file system on awindows machine that does big file reads then you're talking about multiple FAT reads.....

 

[Will_3rd]

The problem is that Mac users seem to barely know that NTFS exists and continue using their age old FAT32 rants.

That is perhaps because they are not as technically in tune as the majority of the people in this forum and ignorant

btw my external drive for my iBook is formatted to FAT32