>For all clarity: you're talking about msxdos.sys(0005)/f37d. That also has to
>be changed. Nevertheless also our diskroms need modification (even when
>intercepting #f252, unless you make another patch for each interface :-( )
>and that was the thing we were talking about.
Sorry because I always say same, but: look at MSXCDEX for MegaSCSI!! It
uses this method (own code in a RAM segment and #F252 patching) and works
fine! Only problem is that it works only with MegaSCSI.
And why not to make a patch for each interface? Or a drivers system as I
proposed. Then there is no need of modifying DOS kernel ROM (it is quite
dangerous I think, and unuseful for people having DOS2 in ROM).
>Does everyone agree on the fact of using 24bit sectornumbers instead
>of 32?
It is so simple as this:
FAT16 --> Maximum partition size = 2Gb --> 24 bit sector numbers is enough.
People speaking about FAT32: please don't build your house beginning by the
roof. Let's make a reliable FAT16 driver, then let's talk about FAT32 if we
really need it.
Besides MegaSCSI is prepared for handle 24 bit sector numbers, and NOT 32
bit sector numbers. I don't know about other interfaces.
By the way, does anyone know EXTACTLY what does ROM code and what does RAM
code of DOS 2? (RAM code surely is a copy of part of the ROM code, right?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konami Man - AKA Nestor Soriano (^ ^)v - Itsumo MSX user
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/9797/msx.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 18281450
"In Windows 98, 3.000 found failures of W95 have been corrected..."
Translation: 3.000.000 not found failures continue without being corrected...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
