Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4021F69@emwatent02.meters.com.au> From: "da Silva, Joe" To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" Subject: RE: Max. drive letter, etc. (was Hard Disk 20gb and dos) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:32:29 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Oh, yeah - that reminds me ... does anyone know for certain that this 24 drive limit is real, or are people simply assuming this because there are about 24 letters (26 actually) in the English alphabet? I remember reading an old Micro$oft manual that said you could have *more* drive letters than there were letters in the alphabet, so that the drives above "Z:" would be "[:" and so on, as per the ASCII character set ... Joe. Speaking of other (possible) myths, I also vaguely recall reading somewhere that the often quoted statement, that "if you have two drives on an IDE cable, then the slowest drive will determine the speed (transfer rate) of both drives", is a myth ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernie [SMTP:bernie AT mbox302 DOT swipnet DOT se] > Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 17:46 > To: opendos AT delorie DOT com > Subject: Re: Hard Disk 20gb and dos > > Pat wrote: > >Yes the is very true. DOS only has the cpability of 24 total drives, > >whether they be physical or logical or a conbination of both. So why use > >an 8GB drive for FAT 16? Really seems rediculous to me. > > I know that, still I have more than 10GB for DOS (MS-DOS 6.2, two drives) > here. I have no idea what it is. My hope is that sometime this week (ie. > tommorow) or the next I'll get my new parts. With a new 46.1GB HD I'll > start over with a fresh set of GBs - not even copying the c:\dos directory > :) > //Bernie