| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)Posted Oct 20, 2005 17:45 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)Parent article: Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)
Clustering? With Windows? I just about fell of my chair laughing at that one!
(Log in to post comments)
Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet) Posted Oct 20, 2005 17:55 UTC (Thu) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] LOL, cluster-fsck is more like it!
Windows doesn't have fsck Posted Oct 20, 2005 19:49 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] It would be a cluster-chkdsk.
Get with the times! Posted Oct 21, 2005 4:57 UTC (Fri) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] That's a cluster-scandisk these days.
Get with the times! Posted Oct 21, 2005 7:27 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] Actually it's chkdsk. Unless I'm mistaken, Windows NT and its successors have always used chkdsk, whereas scandisk first showed up in MSDOS 6 (or maybe 5), and hasn't been used since Windows Millenium Edition (the last non-NT Windows).
Get with the times! Posted Oct 21, 2005 13:37 UTC (Fri) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] scandisk was first available in MS-DOS 6.2, IIRC.
Get with the times! Posted Oct 22, 2005 18:45 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] That would be a cluster-scandskw
Get with the times! Posted Nov 12, 2010 19:06 UTC (Fri) by naesten (guest, #71199) [Link] Not unless it's user-initiated, after Windows 95 has already booted! But the question remains: who in their right minds would have a cluster running Windows 95 in the first place? (Okay, okay, so maybe you could use ME instead ... but is that even an improvement?)
|
|
||||||||||||