>> There shouldn't be any problems adding LFN in a DOS program, I don't know
>> how to do it, but I can't understand why we are restricted to just see the
>> LFN.
>> However, the program will be bigger (and thereby slower) and the file names
>> aren't that nice for other DOS users (that don't have LFNDIR or something
>> simular).
>
>The program that handles lfns isn't any larger than those that don't
>support them. The reason being that the program doesn't have the code
>internal to the program itself. This is handled by the os. All the
>program does is to make a call to a particular interrupt and service. The
>difference being that with lfn names the service is different than that of
>normal 8.3 names. If the program makes the extra call, then long
>filenames will be accessable, otherwise it'll behave just like a normal
>8.3 name. Caldera's lfn support works this way at least. I'm not
>positive about microsofts, but I'd wager it works pretty much the same
>way.
Yes, but what about people not running DR-DOS with the LFNBeta3? Then the
program most *contain* the code for LFN thereby making it bigger.
I'm still a bit uncertain to change to DR-DOS since many games didn't start
at all (or crashed) in 7.01 (I have however download all of the 7.0x realeses)
I have never gotten M$-DOS to crash, so why change into DR-DOS that does
crash?
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
