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 Subject: Re: Dual boot DR DOS and Win95 In-Reply-To: <484DA0D0BC1@reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Precedence: bulk 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