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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

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