[bc_programming]

I was able to confirm in the Windows NT4 source code that he originally wrote some of the code for the format dialog on 2-13-95. That much is true. (late 1994, early 1995, close enough)

>"I also had to decide how much 'cluster slack' would be too much, and that wound up constraining the format size of a FAT volume to 32GB."

NT4 didn't support FAT32, and NT4 actually was actually able to be 4GB rather than 2GB for a FAT volume because NT4 allowed 64K clusters, so actually exceeded what most systems were able to do at the time. Formatting as FAT in NT4 had no cluster check or option. The cluster size used was decided based on the size of the volume.

Furthermore, the The 32GB limitation for FAT32 volumes was originally in the internal format functions, not the dialog itself. On Windows 2000 (Which does support FAT32) you can try to format a drive bigger than 32GB as FAT32, but the formatting will fail, as it is hard-coded at the end of the format to fail trying to format FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB. The dialog itself isn't what presents this limitation and it is shared by the command line format.com which uses the same functions.

Not sure why he seems to always exaggerate his own involvement. He's got people believing that he wrote the Zip folder code that Microsoft literally licensed from Info-Zip because he had to touch it to get it integrated. I guess exaggeration is what "influencers" do, and that's what he is at least trying to be now.

[chungy]

Memory is a fickle thing, but the format dialog enforcing a FAT32 limit is probably Dave's biggest failing when it comes to telling old stories.

I don't know if FAT32 was in development in late 1994, it's possible, but it sure didn't ship in Windows NT 4, nor the original Windows 95. Even when it did land in Windows 95 OSR2, the format command happily accepted partitions up to 128GiB; but okay, Windows 95 isn't NT.

Windows 2000's internal formatting functions appear to be the real reason FAT32 is limited to 32GiB on new formats. The GUI, format command, and diskpart are all equally incapable of creating a >32GiB file system. Why? Who knows, it's not like drives of that size or larger didn't already exist at the time. If you use, say, mkdosfs on Linux, the VFAT driver in Windows 2000+ will take volumes up to 2TiB, you can even install Windows 2000 on such large volumes.

[dspillett]

> are all equally incapable of creating a >32GiB file system. Why? Who knows,

Win95osr2 could format FAT32 volumes up to at least 128GiB IIRC, the 32GiB came when the filesystem was officially added to the NT line in Windows 2000⁰.

Part of the reason, I always assumed, was to push people to use NTFS where they otherwise wouldn't, which gave MS a bit of lock-in because NTFS wasn't particularly stable on Linux at the time. ExFat as a compromise didn't exist until a fair while later either.

> If you use, say, mkdosfs on Linux, the VFAT driver in Windows 2000+ will take volumes up to 2TiB

2TiB is only the limit if you stick to 512 byte blocks, the filesystem supports up to 4096 byte blocks giving 16TiB. Some filesystem tools didn't like this, and the larger cluster sizes could be very wasteful of space for small files³, so it was often avoided. I don't know if the Linux tools supported this from the start, but they certainly did eventually.

--

[0] there was at least one common 3rd a party driver, from sysinternals to support it on NT4

[1] for safety the most common methods for using NTFS under Linux defaulted to read-only, then and for some time after

[2] sometimes to the extent of causing corruption rather than just refusing to work

[3] the main reason to use FAT32 over FAT16 at the time⁴ being that above 32MiB the cluster size needed to increase about the minimum 512B, up to 32KiB for 2GiB filesystems⁵ meaning an average of 16KiB wasted per file.

[4] later the 2GiB limit⁵ was more significant as drive sizes grew

[5] 4GiB was possible with 64KiB blocks though while officially supported by the format this was not supported by all tools

[chungy]

> 2TiB is only the limit if you stick to 512 byte blocks, the filesystem supports up to 4096 byte blocks giving 16TiB.

Aye, I'm aware, but a 16TiB FAT32 file system in that configuration is only usable on Linux, at which point... why? Use exFAT in that range!

Windows NT 5.x's storage drivers don't support hard disks larger than 2TiB, and there's nothing to do about that. It puts the upper limit of FAT32 on those systems at 2TiB.

[dspillett]

IIRC FAT32 supported larger sectors in part for future proofing. It was made because of storage length limits on its predecessor so it makes sense that the devs were very conscious of the need.

Also some storage systems are more efficient speed-wise with larger sectors (though if that was a concern for you, you probably weren't using FAT<anything>). It also made switching between 16 & 32 in-place easier, though I can think of a reason off the top of my head why you would want/need to, and none of the standard tooling could do that.

[chungy]

As an aside, and connected to the failing memory thing, Raymond Chen has repeated multiple times that Space Cadet Pinball couldn't get working on a 64-bit build and never shipped with any version of Windows, and that's why it was gone in Vista. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition has a working 64-bit native build of Pinball.

Well, it was a game from 1995 and wouldn't fit in with Vista's style revamp. Even the old Minesweeper and Solitaire games became Direct3D accelerated in Vista. Maybe the effort to do the same overhaul to Pinball was discarded, but the idea that a 64-bit native build couldn't get working is absurd when the previous Windows version included the very thing.

[jborean93]

In his defence he has clarified this was for the Alpha AXP 64bit build that had the problem https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220106-00/?p=10....

[Kwpolska]

There were issues with Pinball on "Windows XP 64-bit Edition", or the Itanium version. A great video explaining this is https://youtube.com/watch?v=3EPTfOTC4Jw

[rsweeney21]

I owned zip folders for a while during the windows Vista days. I could have sworn the code was originally purchased, not written by someone at Microsoft. Honestly, it looked like it had been run through an obfuscator. I assumed that the original author had done that to ensure it was difficult for Microsoft to make changes/improvements.

I still have nightmares about that code. :)

[aargh_aargh]

I may be misremembering, but Dave has spoken on his Dave's Garage Youtube channel about running a separate software business selling small utilities and later selling some of them to Microsoft. This might have been one of them. A quick search confirms that he also claims that here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kfpjhg/i_am_dave_plum...

[lgunsch]

He talks about it in one of his videos. The zip directory was a product of a side hustle of his, which Microsoft then bought out. In the video he comments how much easier it was to integrate when he had access to more internal apis.

[xnx]

Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39587379

21 days ago | 121 comments

[shp0ngle]

It was purchased.

[Maxious]

"vzip150.zip" credited to [e-mail] doesn't mention anything about info-zip https://www.sac.sk/files.php?d=7&l=V

Where did the covette come from then? https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/dev-shows-off-...

[Lammy]

It used InnerMedia DynaZIP.

Source: Extracted VZIP150's InstallShield `data.z`, saw `DZIP32.DLL`, and `DUNZIP32.DLL`, and confirmed with `strings` on `Vzip.dll`.

http://dynazip.com/ confirms “DynaZip technology is used by Microsoft Corp. and for many years it has been directly incorporated into the Desktop and Server versions of the Windows Operating Systems. DynaZip technology implements the compression engine behind the Windows Zip Folder user interface which allows users to view, extract-from and create ZIP files that are managed as compressed folders.”

https://web.archive.org/web/19961130210204/http://www.innerm... Version 3

https://web.archive.org/web/20000226025901/http://www.dynazi... Version 4

[EMIRELADERO]

For reference: https://github.com/lianthony/NT4.0/blob/b4a8d373d8a082db6758...

[josephcsible]

Warning: don't look if you ever want to contribute to Wine or ReactOS

[EMIRELADERO]

That's just a myth. ReactOS routinely uses IDA to inspect actual Windows binary logic.

[mrguyorama]

Disassembling a binary is "clean room" reverse engineering but looking at leaked source is not.

Or, at least, that was what it was in the 80s.

[josephcsible]

I know that Microsoft employees have accused them of such things, but is there any real evidence of such, or even anyone unaffiliated with Microsoft who can corroborate?

[jeroenhd]

I think he's misremembering about the format part because the UI does have some arbitrary cluster sizes for NTFS: https://github.com/lianthony/NT4.0/blob/b4a8d373d8a082db6758...

That code still seemed to be around in (some versions of) XP: https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b...

As for the ZIP support, I can't find the source code for ZIP folders specifically. There's this excerpt from another company (Schlumberger Technology Corp.): https://github.com/tongzx/nt5src/blob/daad8a087a4e75422ec96b... which was added in 1996 if the comments are to be believed.

[0110101001]

> I was able to confirm in the Windows NT4 source code that he originally wrote some of the code for the format dialog on 2-13-95.

That was a dry Monday, not a rainy Thursday. It's possible he wrote the code Thursday, but didn't get to check it in until Sunday (though Thursday was dry too), but I know I couldn't tell you the what the weather was for code I wrote last month.

[wannacboatmovie]

I thought that sounded dubious. The 32GB limit is also enforced in diskpart.exe (for the Windows-uninitiated, a console tool for disk manipulation) which would mean it's decoupled from any UI code. In other words, the UI is not what is enforcing the limit OS-wide.

[Dalewyn]

It would be nice if you can cite credentials, if possible; not everyone has/had access to Windows NT source code and Dave for his part provided his credentials.

Not that I am discounting your claim, but from a cursory glance through your comment history you're practically a nobody with a seeming vendetta against someone who credibly had a part in much of Windows NT's innards.

[bc_programming]

Fair enough. As others have noted the source code was leaked; I've got NT4, NT5, XP, XPSP1 and Server 2003 codebases to review from that, which I downloaded a good while ago. I've been a software developer primarily targeting Windows for 20 years, 10 of those professionally. I was a Microsoft MVP for half of those (2012-2016 inclusive). The reference to the date is found in the header of nt4\private\windows\shell\shelldll\unicode\format.c

The 32GB limit for FAT32 doesn't appear to be handled by the shell code or the dialog, so when I said it was handled internally to the formatting code, I couldn't actually find that. It's just somewhere loweer than the UI. What I did do howeever was boot up Windows 2000, the first version that did have FAT32, and there's no limitation in the format dialog itself. It goes through the entire process and then gives a "Volume too big" error after it has gone through the process, an error shared by not just the format dialog, but diskpart, disk management, and format, which certainly suggests that that is happening at some lower level. The dialog in question does just call into other functions to perform the actual format, but I wasn't able to find the actual source files for it.

>Dave for his part provided his credentials.

Now he understandably does leave out a bit of info about his history which you could arguably say is part of my "vendetta" that you observed. The reason for the proportion of comments is less a vendetta and more that I get kind of worked up every time stuff of his is posted and people applaud how great he is. He's no Dave Cutler but he certainly talks like he was.

Now, as to the tidbit. Dave Plummer ran a scam company that was sued by Washington State in 2006, "SoftwareOnline.com, Inc. ". He actually left Microsoft specifically to run this company. Court documents can be seen here:

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s...

You can find David W. Plummer listed in the court complaint.

The short of it is that it was an online software scam company that tricked people into downloading fake Anti-virus and security software using online ads, and then the software delivered additional adware and nagware onto users machines.

That is why it may appear I have a vendetta. I don't trust a word he says and especially when what he says directly contradicts other sources. Mistakes in memory are one thing, but some of them are rather beyond the sort of thing I think is reasonable. Paired with his history, I'm convinced he's actually lying intentionally because he's trying to build a "following" and "Dave's Garage" is just his latest scam. That's why he keeps "coming forward" in posts and his youtube as writing this or doing that. What bothers me is that it's working, because most people don't seem to even question it, even where there are rather severe contradictions.

[Dalewyn]

Spent the afternoon formatting a 128GB USB stick (only thing on hand >32GB) to FAT32 via the format command on one of my Windows machines to see what it'll do, and indeed it failed at the end saying the volume is "too large". So wherever the logic is, I agree it's deeper than the interface Dave wrote.

To give benefit of the doubt, though, Dave didn't say he wrote that logic into the interface. Just that he had to "decide on the cluster slack", which clearly was written by someone (which could be him, this wasn't specified) at a deeper level of the operating system. It's also worth noting that Dave's interface doesn't even give the option to format with FAT32 in the first place, at least with my 128GB USB stick.

So I find nothing wrong with his statement. He wrote the interface, a temporary one which ended up being permanent. He also played the role (or at least a role) in deciding the arbitrary 32GB FAT32 volume size limit.

As for SoftwareOnline.com, that's also mentioned on Dave's Wikipedia article so it's not something hidden away. Anyone so inclined to research his character will see it.

With regards to your vendetta against him regarding his past conduct, it is unwarranted: He settled with Washington state and paid penalties, he returned refunds as requested; the case is closed. If you're going to keep bothering him over that, it's you who is wrong.

[naikrovek]

I'm not who you're replying to, but I'm a bit torn on your response. I started by understanding your self-described vendetta, but then I read the link you posted.

The link describes the judgement against the company he was CTO of at the time. So, he's been through the justice system for this, and has been reprimanded satisfactorily. He's paid the fines and made the promises and does not appear to have reoffended.

I don't think there's anything else for him to do in order to atone for this.

So, why are you still mad? What would it take for you to let go of this vendetta that you say you have?

I don't care either way, I'm not involved. I'm just curious why people will forgive some for just about anything but hold negative attitudes toward others for their entire lives, no matter what they do.

[bc_programming]

He was CTO but also owned the company. That is why he was named directly on the complaint.

I feel he violated what I feel are very basic, elementary ethical principles with regards to software development, by specifically setting out to create software products that were not designed to give the user value but to scam and trick them out of their money.

(There's an argument to be made that he was merely ahead of his time at Microsoft but that's perhaps another discussion.)

He's retired and supposedly wealthy. Not sure what sort of stock options he might have for 7 years at Microsoft, but how much of that wealth (if it even exists) is or was from the scam company? He didn't have to pay most of the fine and the number of customers that requested refunds is hardly documented. For all we know dude is still living off money he scammed from people.

Either way when you stoop that low I don't think you can ever stand up straight again- all you can do is try to hide your slouch.

>What would it take for you to let go of this vendetta that you say you have?

Well, to take an extreme but analogous (IMO) example - what would it take to trust Bernie Madoff for financial advice? That's kind of what I feel this is like. Doesn't matter if they "went through the justice system". You never regain the trust in the field when you so readily violated it to make money.

[naikrovek]

So what would someone who has done this need to do to win you over?

Record shows he’s paid his debts, to both society and everyone directly affected, at least everyone who requested refunds. Just as importantly, as far as we know, he hasn’t re-offended.

Bernie Madoff isn’t out of the justice system yet, and Dave Plummer hasn’t started any new scam companies, at least as far as I know. So per your analogy, it’s as if Bernie Madoff got out of jail 20 years ago and has been a cashier at a grocery store ever since. I would not go to him to invest my money, and he would not ask me to.

I don’t like it when people who do something wrong are held to that activity for the rest of their life, no matter what else they do. One can’t un-commit the crime, but they can demonstrate that they are reformed over and over and over and it will never be enough for a lot of people.

I don’t understand that. I want to understand that.

[mappu]

NT 4 and Windows 2000 source code were leaked on Feb 12 2004.

The second google result is a copy that Microsoft are hosting on their own website: https://github.com/lianthony/NT4.0

[Dalewyn]

In that case, parent commenter or someone sufficiently motivated should cite file and line number to corroborate the claim.

(I'm not going to do it because I'm drunk and I probably have better things to do than illicitly look through Microsoft source code.)

[atombender]

Someone else already posted a comment with the exact file.

[ikari_pl]

I do remember there was a leak of Windows 2000 source code years ago.

I downloaded it only to search for swear words. The most offensive thing I've ever found was things like "workaround because some idiots call <API name> <description of a wrong way to do it>"

[sebazzz]

> I guess exaggeration is what "influencers" do, and that's what he is at least trying to be now.

Regardless of the rest of your story, this made me chuckle a bit - since Dave went from signing off his YouTube video’s from “I’m only here for likes and subs” to “I’m mostly here for the likes and subs” and started accepting sponsored products.

[Solvency]

Dude this guy is desperately trying to avoid fading into oblivion and is clinging to a little ancient format window to remain relevant in public eye. Have some mercy and let him have his 32gb moment.

[exe34]

Memory is an interesting thing. I once claimed to somebody I was seeing that I had done/said something humorous, fully believing that it was my own experience. It was only when he mentioned hearing that joke from a famous standup comedian that it really hit me - I think what really happened was that I watched a clip a long time ago, and thought hey that's the kind of thing I'd have done - and then proceeded to record the memory as mine, even going as far as attaching it to a specific shop from the same chain in the story.

[m_sahaf]

Once famous incident of this effect is reported by Oliver Sacks, where he confidently narrated a story that presumably happened to him during the war until his brother corrected him:

https://www.wired.com/2015/08/fully-immersive-mind-oliver-sa...

[naikrovek]

i remember reading a study that showed conclusively that verbalizing your memories changes them permanently, every time. at some point, if you talk about a memory enough, you wind up remembering the words you've used to describe the memory far more than you remember the memory itself.

depending on the words you choose to describe the memory, and how much you talk about it, you can dramatically change what you think you saw or heard or experienced, to the point where you're telling something that is based on memory, but is now effectively 100% fiction.

human memory is very, very flawed.

[exe34]

Ian Banks wrote something about how if you live long enough and reminisce enough, your worst memory becomes indistinguishable from your best memory.