Reasons why Microsoft is so Successful! - Faith!

itdaddyitdaddy Senior MemberMember Posts: 2,089 ■■■■□□□□□□
Definitions for system volume and boot volume

the link above explains System volume vs boot volume.

Boot volume has the C:\windows OS files of course

SystemRoot=C:\WINDOWS ....huh?

System volume has the boot files: Ntldr, Boot.ini, and Ntdetect.com

why call the boot.ini volume the boot volume way too simple
and call the system volume the c:\windows. every heard of systemroot?
OMG

The key to MS $$$is faith..they call things all the time that are not as though they were...faith...! icon_cheers.gif


I know it is play on words but you would think they would call the boot volume the volume with the boot.ini and loader programs and the system volume the volume wth the get it Operating System..faith I say faith!
to call something that is not! as though it were.

Same goes for IT manager who dont know jack about IT that weasle their way thru interviews BSing their way in and cotinueing to snowball their peers on what they know in IT...faith..calling what is not as thought it were so!

-my words of wisdom for the day ...

now back to working my arse officon_study.gif

Comments

  • HeroPsychoHeroPsycho Inactive Imported Users Posts: 1,940
    You should read how they teach subnetting. icon_lol.gif
    Good luck to all!
  • tierstentiersten Member Posts: 4,505
    Microsoft have got the generally accepted convention for boot and system volumes the other way around for some unknown reason. Somebody decided that they were that way around back in the days when they were initially designing and implementing NT.

    Windows isn't always kept in C:\Windows though and the bootloader isn't always ntldr either. Depending on what version you install, it may be in C:\WINNT instead or some other random custom location that the user selects. The bootloader in Vista and above is bootmgr.
  • astorrsastorrs Member Posts: 3,139 ■■■■■■□□□□
    Like tiersten said, as long as you remember that the Boot volume contains the system files and the System volume contains the boot files you'll be fine.

    And yes whoever decided that obviously had been out drinking the night before drunken_smilie.gif
  • steve_fsteve_f Member Posts: 97 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Microsoft is successful because they got their products out there better than anyone else, and can now bask in the Network Effect.

    Network effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • itdaddyitdaddy Senior Member Member Posts: 2,089 ■■■■□□□□□□
    I just think you could call the boot volume the volume with the boot files. I know about winnt and windows being different. The point I was making is
    "bootmgr" ntldr who cares (laughing ahhaha) but the point is boot anything shuld be the the boot volume and the system volume should be the OS (s) for "system" operating system. but it is backwards. MS is awesome at calling something that is NOT theirs THEIRS! That is my point and it is ironic faith is calling something that is NOT as though it were is the definition; just funny that is all.

    Steve_f not sure I agree that their stuff is the best. But the best generally have the most $$$$$ (hende bill gates and how he started off in life his school could afford the best computer in the US back then hence you are somewhat right; read Outliers book very true) to do the development. But you are 100% right it is the network affect..but it would be nice to see linux kick MS butt someday..yeah I do like MS stuff but just sucks that all you see is MS stuff and be nice to have someone else share the pie....

    hey did they have MS on the movie star trek in the voyager????
    I bet they did! hahahaha ahahh!hahah!

    thanks for partacking guys. I just thought it was funny to come across this. I have always known this but it is just weird semantics!
    Boot.ini and boot volume nOT!!!!!!!!!!! haahahaaah
    this just cracks me up.i need a beer! maybe two ! hahah
  • tierstentiersten Member Posts: 4,505
    Microsoft aren't claiming the terms system volume and boot volume are theirs. They've just got it the other way around from everybody else. Its probably a legacy from the start of NT where it was a cross platform OS designed by a VMS guy. NT originally supported x86, MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC. It was intentionally developed on a non x86 platform as well.
  • mrhaun03mrhaun03 Member Posts: 359
    astorrs wrote: »
    And yes whoever decided that obviously had been out drinking the night before drunken_smilie.gif

    And probably still drinking that day.
    Working on Linux+
Sign In or Register to comment.