A ScanDisc-alike program would be nice, but IMHO what is really _needed_ is just some way of testing and fixing a fat32 disk, nothing fancy fust functional. This would give time to ScanDisk be implemented in any way that his author believes is best.
As for 386 and memory requirements, we made some calculations here some time ago that 1) machines below 386 are not hardware compatible with disk worth using fat32, 2) due to bios limitations and machine evolution, if a bigger disk is possible then memory is almest often available.
What would be nice though, is a smaller non-386 version for smaller systems, and we already have that.
Eric Auer escreveu:
Hi, some comments on your comments... CHKDSK is written with compatibility in mind even though it has several auto-activating cache builtin cache schemes. It looks like CHKDSK for the user, adds surface scan, and is 8086 compatible. CHKDSK of MS DOS does not support FAT32 - this is generally a task for SCANDISK at least in the earlier versions of FAT32-enabled Windows.
In fact I believe that in the same version when MS introduced FAT32, it dropped chkdsk.
The fastest way to write SCANDISK would be implementing [...]
I believe it would be faster to make dosfsck work. and then...
Last but not least it is useful to have TWO different ways to scan FAT12/FAT16 (because you can assume that both have different bugs, this will help finding the bugs in both tools).
:)
FreeDOS kernel should be MS DOS 3.3 but system should be MS DOS 6.22?
I believe that we all just want to use FreeDOS in real machines for real applications. That requires a bit more than 3.3
In my opinion FreeDOS is comming to be a better than MS-DOS OS.
DOS 6.0 not really - our EMM386 is limited,
Not so much anymore :)
MEMMAKER not existing at all,
At the time it was really difficult to set everything. I believe it is easyer now (it has been for me) ;-)
I might eventually get bored enough too add delayed writes and other gimmicks to LBAcache
I would not use it :) , it is too dangerous
(and maybe add a network drive
> if you are willing to go that way, Andreas is working on an IP driver for DOS/Win/Linuix which is great (I am using it) and would be free for FreeDOS.
I think we can call FreeDOS a clone of MS DOS 5.0 features with many goodies from later Win/DOS versions inside but with still a few DOS 5.0 features missing - some "legacy" ones do not hurt,
> My point of view is: "can we use it to run the programs I want?"
some others like Win 3.11 compat should probably be fixed before we call it FreeDOS 1.0 ...
There is probably a patent to prevent us of it anyway :(
Alain
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
