Message-Id:	<3.0.6.16.20000314220940.2e17451c@mail.highfiber.com>
X-Sender:	raster AT mail DOT highfiber DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (16)
Date:	Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:09:40
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
From:	Charles Dye <raster AT highfiber DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Dual boot DR DOS and Win95
In-Reply-To:	<484DA0D0BC1@reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

At 05:05 PM 3/14/00 +0100, you wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:55:43 Charles Dye wrote:
>
>> Here's how I set up my system at work:
>> 
>> 1)  Boot from an MS-DOS 5 or 6 floppy.  Create boot partition using
>>     FDISK.  Reboot and format it.  Use MS-DOS 5 or 6 because the Win95
>>     FDISK can create partitions which DR DOS can't access (yes, even
>>     FAT16) and the DR DOS version of FDISK is just plain buggy.
>
>BTW, these problems are long fixed with my personal issues of FDISK, 
>FORMAT, and SYS. 
>
>It is actually nothing more than switching back the OEM label 
>xxxxxyyy to "IBM  3.3" instead of "DRDOS 7". Of course, you 
>can do the same using DISKEDIT or DEBUG. This also fixes serious 
>OS/2 problems to access DR-DOS partitions.

As I recall, there were actually two issues with FDISK:  it created
clusters larger than needed (that is, too few clusters) plus the
unrecognized OEM label.  Neither problem was terribly significant
by itself; it was the interaction between the two that caused possibly
disastrous problems under MS-DOS.

My guess is that a copy of FDISK patched in this fashion would avoid
the worst incompatibility problems, but would still result in wasted
space on small hard drives -- say, less than 128 megs.  And of course
patching the OEM label on the drive itself won't fix the cluster size.

raster AT highfiber DOT com

- Raw text -