Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:41:44 -0600 (CST)
From:	"Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
To:	"'OpenDOS newsgroup'" <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject:	Re: [opendos-developer] Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970210060236.285a-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.3.95.970210153711.26239B-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Colin W. Glenn wrote:
> > > Yep, I think it should be possible to mount BOTH ways from the

> > the drive, the system would prompt you to insert the volume if you
> > accessed it and it wasn't in the drive.
> 
> How can you "mount" something that is not there?  That is a
> contradiction of terms.  You mount a disk, use it, then umount
> it and then remove it.  If you remove a disk without umounting,
> kiss the disk goodbye and get your fingers on the BRS.

As I said, you could 'mount', ie declare the diskname as something you
would like to use later on, the driver should be smart enough to see that
the volume isn't really there and ignore it UNTIL you attempt to access
it, then it generates the error.  Should you remove the media before
switching to another 'mounted' disk, the driver sees that the media has
changed and prompts you to insert the prior disk if it needs to be updated
before switching to the one you want to use.  I know this sounds ungainly,
but DOS does this with floppies already.

<! PrePared HTML!  Just export as a HTML file and Click!>
The Light<a href="http://www.thelight.org/">.</a>
A Christian Web Site! 
<a href="http://www.hspro.com/hotspot/">HotSpot</a>

- Raw text -