To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Comment-To: Bernie <bernie AT hem DOT passagen DOT se>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 16 DOT 19900702211843 DOT 34975bcc AT hem DOT passagen DOT se>
Message-Id: <2.07b52.106FF.FVHT3D@belous.munic.msk.su>
From: "Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date: Fri,  2 Jun 2000 00:33:13 +0400 (MSD)
Organization: Locus
X-Mailer: dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v2.07b52]
Subject: Re: Of large disks (Was Re: Fw: PTS-DOS)
Lines: 27
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

X-Comment-To: Bernie

Hi!

2-éÀÌ-2000 21:18 bernie AT hem DOT passagen DOT se (Bernie) wrote to opendos AT delorie DOT com:

 B> Isn't OnTrack just to bypass the limit in the BIOS of 8.4G? None of my 3
_____________________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 B> Pentiums have that limit

     This is because Phoenix develop EDD specification, which included in
all modern BIOSes. But, unlike 512M BIOS/IDE limit, OS must know about EDD
to access more than 8G.

 > so my interest in the program is extremly small.
 B> (Only one of them actually has a HD that's over 8.4G - the 10.1G) The
 B> problem with getting more than 8.4G usable is that 8.4G is the limit set by
 B> FAT16.

     FAT16 limit is an 2G (really 4G, but MS restricts cluster size by 32K
instead of 64K).

 > 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.