To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Comment-To:	Bernie <bernie AT hem DOT passagen DOT se>
References:	<3 DOT 0 DOT 16 DOT 19900703110646 DOT 33f75d50 AT hem DOT passagen DOT se>
Message-Id:	<2.07b52.USTQ.FX50HT@belous.munic.msk.su>
From:	"Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date:	Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:51:29 +0400 (MSD)
Organization:	Locus
X-Mailer:	dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v2.07b52]
Subject:	Re: Of large disks (Was Re: Fw: PTS-DOS)
Lines:	24
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

X-Comment-To: Bernie

Hi!

3-éÀÌ-2000 17:06 bernie AT hem DOT passagen DOT se (Bernie) wrote to opendos AT delorie DOT com:
 B> Arkady wrote:

>>     FAT16 limit is an 2G (really 4G, but MS restricts cluster size by 32K
>>instead of 64K).
 B> On one partition yes. Jikes, 64K clusters - no wonder they restricted it to
 B> 32K, 512MB partitions are perfect IMHO.

     I don't understand this sentence. Hint: NT support 4G FAT16 with 64K
clusters.

>> > Or have I completly missunderstood this?
>>     Yes. FAT limited in size (FAT16 - 2G, FAT32 much more), but not in
>>position, which can be higher 8G.
 B> Oh, how come only Windows95 can use that area then? I would assume that
 B> other DOSes would be much more interesting if they could handle it (I would
 B> change).

     I don't know any DOS, which can handle disks more than 8G, because this
requires rework BIOS Int13 access code.

- Raw text -