Hi!
25-Июн-2004 21:59 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EA> Hi all, Geraldo sent some FAT32 formatting logs (thanks!!),
EA> but I do not really get the magic here:
For whom you target this letter?
EA> Differences in MS FORMAT output depending on kernel: FreeDOS versus MS ->
EA> 6106.54 MB total, 0.01 MB broken versus 6106.52 MB total, 0 broken
EA> 1563271 versus 1563268 units, S/N 240D-14FE versus 0E30-14EA
What is "units"? Clusters? What says bootfix, why there is difference
in units? Is there really "broken" clusters and why there are no such under
MS-DOS?
EA> Differences in FreeDOS FORMAT /D output depending on kernel ->
EA> Test-reading errors 810c, 020c versus 7, 7 (FAT1x mode, FAT32 mode)
EA> <-- why do sector read error codes differ?
"Error codes"? Which error codes, which DOS functions return these
codes and why/where?
EA> MS: Had to zap FAT1x 12225 sec/fat and 512 root dir entries BPB info
"zap"? What mean "zap" and why you say this explicitly?
EA> MS: Had to init root dir position. No backup / FSinfo sectors used!
EA> <-- FreeDOS FORMAT already has workarounds for those odd default BPB
EA> values in MS kernel, but should probably override "no backup/info"!?
Don't know what mean "no sectors used" and what we may do there.
EA> FATs at 32-24459 versus 24481 (FAT 2 at 12246 / 12257)
What is "32-24459"? Starting and ending sector? Do you mean that under
FD FATs size is 24428 sectors? And that under MS-DOS each FAT longer by 11
sectors?
EA> 6,253,072 versus 6,253,060 kBy, 1,563,268 versus 1,563,265 clusters
Ie. you mean, that under FD-FORMAT there is different count of clusters
(1,563,271 under MSF, 1,563,268 under FDF)? And why FDF gives 3 clusters
less?
EA> Differences in BOOTFIX results after using MS FORMAT, running BOOTFIX
EA> under the same kernel as FORMAT, comparison MS kernel versus FreeDOS kernel
EA> Default FAT size 12225 versus 12214, S/N 0E3014EA versus 240D14FE
EA> DWords at [24] and [44] differ.
"44"? Three high bytes of SN?
EA> Differences in BOOTFIX results after using FreeDOS FORMAT, running BOOTFIX
EA> under the same kernel as FORMAT, comparison MS kernel versus FreeDOS kernel
EA> Default FAT size 12225 versus 12214, default root cluster 0 versus 2
FD better?
EA> Default Info / Backup -1 / -1 versus 1 / 6.
What right, what wrong and why?
EA> Strange: BOOTFIX only shows current BPB for MS kernel, even though it seems
EA> to be identical to the default BPB. For FreeDOS, only default BPB is shown!?
There is bytes, which not shown: for example, for FAT32 root_entries
field isn't shown (becaus it shouldn't be used).
EA> Boot sector BPB is as default/current but has root cluster fixed...!
EA> <-- VERY strange! MS kernel IGNORES the boot sector BPB and uses root
EA> directory starting cluster ZERO (invalid value) as current value.
Why you think so (that MS ignores boot sector)? Is this happen with
boot sector after MS-FORMAT (and if not, which reasons, what you think,
force MS to ignore given boot sector)? Is this happen when MS works with all
four boot sectors (MS-FORMAT under MS, MSF under FD, FD-FORMAT under MS and
FDF under FD)?
EA> Either there is some current / default bug in BOOTFIX or ...???
Bug in what?
EA> DWords at [24] and [44] differ, and words at [30] and [32].
xFAT_sectors, serial_no, info_sector and backup_sector?
EA> Any ideas?
"Any ideas" of what?
EA> Why does Windows end up using the WRONG cluster for the root
EA> directory after you use FreeDOS FORMAT in MS kernel?
You make long deal with FORMAT, you should understand this.
EA> All other FreeDOS / MS combinations seem to be okay (not sure what
EA> DOSFSCK / MS SCANDISK would say!).
EA> Would it make a difference to force backup boot sector / fsinfo sector to
EA> enabled (at sector numbers 6 and 1 respectively) although MS kernel does not
EA> suggest that in the default BPB? And WHY would that influence the root
EA> directory cluster number processing???
In their infinity wisdom MS programmers use strange reasons to reject
info from bootsectos. I have no ideas which reasons they use and why.
Matthias describes some reasons, why and when W9x rejects boot sector
because it not likes label.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
