Bjorn Simonsen wrote:
>I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. Did you FDISK
>your system with DR-DOS 7.03 or Dr/Open-DOS 7.02? If so - your
>problem might be related to a bug in Dr-Dos fdisk.
You forgot this recent (00-03-15) post by Matthias Paul (the person he's
answering is Charles Dye)
> As I recall, there were actually two issues with FDISK: it created
> clusters larger than needed (that is, too few clusters) plus the
> unrecognized OEM label. Neither problem was terribly significant
> by itself; it was the interaction between the two that caused possibly
> disastrous problems under MS-DOS.
>
> My guess is that a copy of FDISK patched in this fashion would avoid
> the worst incompatibility problems, but would still result in wasted
> space on small hard drives -- say, less than 128 megs. And of course
> patching the OEM label on the drive itself won't fix the cluster size.
This is correct. However, it s not only the OEM label that I changed
in my personal issue of FDISK... ;-) Though it s not fully tested
yet, the cluster size problem is gone too, and there are tons of
other more or less significant changes, that make the user interface
a bit more modern and easier to use, make FDISK more reliable in
some situations, and improve compatibility with other FDISKs as of
MS-DOS, PC DOS, OS/2, and even PTS/DOS. It is also more compatible
with LOADER. Of course, there are also alot of new command line
options. However, it s not yet finished, and it still does not yet
support LBA by itself (I first want to finish all the other stuff,
before I ll add this).
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
