From: "Florian Xaver" <dos DOT fire AT aon DOT at>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Of large disks (Was Re: Fw: PTS-DOS)
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:32:25 +0200
Message-ID: <01bfe52d$ccd71540$2a5fb7d4@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

The next PTS-DOS will support FAT32 and will also support HD > 8GB. (They
will not use the standard bios funktions)

Bye, Florian
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Arkady V.Belousov <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
An: opendos AT delorie DOT com <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Datum: Montag, 03. Juli 2000 22:30
Betreff: Re: Of large disks (Was Re: Fw: PTS-DOS)


>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.
>
>
>