> I thought ProDos wrote CP/M format disks, so why does it need to cache > anything?
It's done for speed -- there's a 64k cache (I think) so that disk access is faster. > > If Cache'n of the FAT and directory is going to be done, then random > > positioning on a file can be done in a similar fashion othrwise, PASS! > > If my calculations are correct, an entire FAT would require 128K so caching > it would be rather expensive and therefore random access would be rather > slow. I'm definitely not in favour of a FAT-based system. Yeah, but how else are we supposed to thread the files? I must say though, that I will be putting support for an as-large-as- you-like disk cache in E-DOS -- up to 16Mb, I think... I don't think anyone will ever use one that big, but it's worth supporting. Si
