From:	JohnT <jrt AT inXSformatics DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Borland 4.5 C/C++ compiler problem
Date:	Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:23:40 -0700
Organization:	http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines:	29
Message-ID:	<39BBEDCC.9A08BFFA@inXSformatics.net>
References:	<s2ik5.11438$gW5 DOT 735021 AT bgtnsc04-news DOT ops DOT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <srh3ps8f0jc69k4tq5emivk7qe94vf6g1c AT 4ax DOT com> <8n65c7$708 AT nntp DOT seflin DOT org> <njedpssuifm20prj5eg71kpo329s3cir94 AT 4ax DOT com> <39B4FA72 DOT 4943D810 AT inXSformatics DOT net> <QPht5.2822$zc6 DOT 364333 AT dfiatx1-snr1 DOT gtei DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	p-328.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win16; I)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Damian Yerrick wrote:

> "JohnT" <jrt AT inXSformatics DOT net> wrote:
> >
> > I was browsing around comp.os.msdos.djgpp and found the problem
> > of parts of the disk being marked "unmoveable". I'm not sure, but
> > think this may be due to DOS sessions running under Windows and
> > getting some kind of undocumented crap written to files or clusters
> > by Windows. My system had two hard drives for a while, one used
> > as backup, and I would get rid of the unmoveable clusters by doing
> > a backup, reformat and copying all the files back. The exact flag
> > that causes the "unmoveable" designation I don't know about, but
> > documented file attributes don't have a bit that means "unmoveable".
> > Anyone got a good guess on this?
>
> "Hidden" files and "system" files are considered by defraggers to be
> fixed in position so as not to break some programs' copy protection.

But when I've done a DIR /s/ah or DIR /s/as to look for hidden and
system files, nothing unusual turned up as I recall. The possibility of
some other bit being set in a file header or something in the FAT table
having an odd value came to mind, but I don't have the know-how to
check out those ideas.

John

- Raw text -