On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Egor Voznessenski wrote:
> > If we use HDD, then we probabbly don't need to read/write directly to
> > sectors.
> Wrong. This is necessary for disk checking and defragmentation utilities
> .
> And with FAT16 we'll have to run defragmentation often!
Yes, but we can't use an
Why not make a FAT32?
If you make a fat 16 now then in 3 years you'll have to build
a FAT32 anyway because by then I suspect that all harddisks will be 10
GB+ and a 'normal' size harddisk will be hard to come by! ;)
But seriously
With the enormous amounts of disk space we are used to these
Hi!
>
> The problem of writing a new disk system might be not such a huge
> problem as it might seem, and this is why:
>
> With the transition from DOS1 -> DOS2 there's been plenty of time to
> find out what programs used less known DOS1 features (documented or
> not). When you would make a lis
> I can't see any real reason for thinking this sector number standard
> probblem. If we use FAT16 we will also use HDD right ?
Right.
> If we use HDD, then we probabbly don't need to read/write directly to
> sectors.
Wrong. This is necessary for disk checking and defragmentation utilities
Hi,
The problem of writing a new disk system might be not such a huge
problem as it might seem, and this is why:
With the transition from DOS1 -> DOS2 there's been plenty of time to
find out what programs used less known DOS1 features (documented or
not). When you would make a list of some
