delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Message-Id: | <3.0.6.16.19990320223428.2e97142a@highfiber.com> |
X-Sender: | raster AT highfiber DOT com |
X-Mailer: | QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (16) |
Date: | Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:34:28 |
To: | opendos AT delorie DOT com |
From: | Charles Dye <raster AT highfiber DOT com> |
Subject: | Re: FDISK problems |
In-Reply-To: | <199903210334.WAA01229@escape.com> |
References: | <3 DOT 0 DOT 6 DOT 16 DOT 19990320121749 DOT 2e9f140e AT highfiber DOT com> |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | opendos AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | opendos AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
At 10:34 PM 3/20/99 -0500, you wrote: >May I pick your brain one more time? Is the >difference between MS-DOS 6.0 and MS-DOS 6.22 FDISKs >significant? As far as I can tell, they are *identical* except for the DOS-version check and the version messages. If anything, I'd say the DOS 6.0 FDISK is slightly preferable -- only because you can run it under DR DOS without having to use SETVER! >Would MS DOS 7 FDISK be preferable to 6.0? I don't have a copy handy, but I suspect it's pretty much the same as DOS 5 and 6.x. The DOS 7.1 FDISK (Win95 SR2) is different, though; it supports the new FAT32 format. raster AT highfiber DOT com
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |