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 interactive user interface. DOSFSCK does have one. A GUI-like user interface would be even better. SCANDISK should not call DOSFSCK as an external program. I think by now it would be better if SCANDISK has the engine(s) compiled in. I have no problem with "SCANDISK requires a 386 and if you use it on FAT32 drives it might consume several MB of RAM" as long as users are able to find out that they can use CHKDSK on older hardware (even though they will be unable to check FAT32 that way).
who knows if MS scandisk runs on <386 ? that's our specification after all.
386+ is fine, but then CHKDSK would have to make a check, and if it detects FAT32: "cannot use CHKDSK, use SCANDISK or DOSFSCK instead" if it detects 386+: "SCANDISK found, we recommend to use it instead of CHKDSK" if it detects 386+: "DOSFSCK found, we recommend to use it instead of CHKDSK" (fat32 + cpu<386 -> "cannot check specified volume")
something like that.
Do you know scandisk can take forever to return to the command prompt? just define the following alias and then type SCANDISK :) alias SCANDISK = CTTY NUL
(which crashes FreeCOM if it is the primary shell and not made permanent)
Bernd
------------------------------------------------------- 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
