> It is more than looks. In Unix filesystems disks/volumes/partitions are > "mounted" into the main file system at some arbitrary "mount point" and > thus the filesystem encompasses all mounted devices. With DOS, all > lettered disks are independent, though resources can be referenced > across disks, it's not seamless. Also, what happens when you get to > disk Z?
Yes I saw that too. But I prefer not to further continue this debate to /dev or /mount. I like to know at hand what file is on which disk. Aside from that, if I made Windows, I would make it go to AA after Z, looks like a little solution. Even though, it would not be bad to call them USB0: or HDD0:, just a bit more complex. > Why should we use filesystem specifications that are constrained by the > limitations of CP/M running on 8 bit processors? I never tried to say that we should use FAT or NTFS. I was just talking about names.
