> > Hi, dosdosfsck-2.8-fat32 does work for FAT32 for me.
> IIRC it has bugs in the fat check/recover logic. Something about getting
> into a loop and something else about destrying Long Names.
My 2.8-fat32 port only contains disk READ functions but should be
compatible to non-FAT32 kernels. Yes,
I agree with Alain. DOSFSCK 2.10 with fixed >2G bug will be the easiest
and the best solution.
Lucho
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technol
Hi,
The problem about all this discussion is that it is talking about
DOSFSCK as if it has to be rewritten an debugged all over. That is not
tha case. It is a _functional_program_ , it's kernel has no more known
bugs (for what I remember). So if this missing function is added, very
little testi
DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086.
But it doesn't support FAT32 ;-)
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Le
Steve Nickolas - Using Windoze schreef:
DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086.
then it means CHKDSK/SCANDISK are intended for FAT12/FAT16 and
DOSFSCK also does FAT32, I guess.
unless someone manages to get CHKDSK/SCANDISK supporting FAT32 :)
Bernd
Bernd Blaauw wrote:
who knows if MS scandisk runs on <386 ? that's our specification after all.
DOS 6.2x's scandisk runs on a Tandy 1000 HX, that's an 8086.
-uso.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial p
Eric Auer schreef:
Hi, dosdosfsck-2.8-fat32 does work for FAT32 for me. The problem with
then what was the disadvantage of using/providing 2.8?
I seem to recall 2.10 was really wanted, so diagnosis of FORMAT could be
done in a better way.
About SCANDISK: Scandisk should be something with an intera
