Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



mst3kpimp

Using more than 512mb ram Update Fix?

Recommended Posts

If you are concerned about security, wiping the Drive is a good idea. Windows 9x has a number of leaks. I have seen parts of deleted files appear in new Files created by my Compilers.

I have hit that Directory limit. The limit is around 65534 Records. The Short Name uses one. Long Names use one per 13 Characters.
The chances of hitting the limit don't increase much with super large Partitions as they are more likely to have more Directories rather than bigger ones.

I already solved the 4GiB File Size limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rloew said:

I have hit that Directory limit. The limit is around 65534 Records. The Short Name uses one. Long Names use one per 13 Characters.
The chances of hitting the limit don't increase much with super large Partitions as they are more likely to have more Directories rather than bigger ones.


 

Yes and no, while 65534 (or roughly 32256 if "normal" long file names are used) is very hard to be reached normally, but as soon as you create stupidly long filenames it is relatively easy to reach it, the given reference shows how the good MS guys reached it  alright in a Windows 7 "standard" install.

But you are right, it depends more on the user's (wrong/absurd) habits than on sheer size of the volume, but besides the above reference I have seen more than one hard disk with thousands (really thousands) of (possibly - let's say - of dubious provenance) MP3's with the file name composed of the song title AND the singer AND the Author AND the year AND the label AND comments like "this_is_a_cool_one_must_give_a_copy_to_George_and_one_to_Franck" :w00t::ph34r: all put together in a directory like "Music" or "Downloaded Stuff".

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpacking one of their WIM Files will definitely do it.

I would hope that someone would separate their MP3s into different categories if they don't want to shorten their names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:26 PM, rloew said:

Not when you are Formatting a multi-Terabyte Drive and not when you are restoring a damaged MBR and you have data you want to keep.

That's what NTFS is best suited for large TB capacity drives.  You don't have to completely format the entire drive.  8TB takes about 30 seconds or less to partition the entire drive.  As for MBR I haven't seen any damaged MBR drives in decades.  Usually IDE was the last time I've seen these get damaged and even then it wasn't due to the drive itself but to the 128GB limitation.  Also using a disk imager you can restore the boot partition in seconds.  All you need at most is a 2GB partition.  Only 22MB is required for a DOS->W10 bootloader as far as space.  Unless you are you using an 4TB or larger drive as your boot partition which would be foolish then you'll have a real mess on your hands if that got corrupted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 1:54 AM, jaclaz said:

No I am not.

Rest assured that I know what I am doing.

I am writing the FAT tables on a pre-wiped (all 00's) device.

Actually wiping a large device (and/or checking it for bad sectors) is something that takes hours/days, and it makes no sense whatsoever to do it when formatting.

Although I don't normally use such stupidly large devices, I do have a "dedicated" machine to wipe disk(s) overnight (actually using the internal ATA Safe Erase which is WAY faster than *anything* software).

Wiping just the area where the partition table will reside is more than enough in any non-tinfoil-hat, non-national-security, non-mission-critical environment, which comprises probably 99% of computers and 100% (more likely 101% ;)) of those running DOS/Windows 9x/Me.

jaclaz
 

A simple low wattage laptop can do the job without any real dedicated machine if you want to reuse the device.  But yes it's possible to recover that data even after wiping the partition table.  You'll be surprised how many hard drives have retrievable data sold on eBay.  But if you are looking that extra security and quick kill I hear those HD-5T magnetic degaussers will do the job.  Then they just buy a brand new 128GB drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to FDISK and my RFDISK, not a Partition Type such as NTFS.

FDISK can crash, destroying ALL Partition information, if there are too many Drives. A Disk Imager won't fix that unless you have already saved the entire Drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:26 AM, jaclaz said:

Yes and no, while 65534 (or roughly 32256 if "normal" long file names are used) is very hard to be reached normally, but as soon as you create stupidly long filenames it is relatively easy to reach it, the given reference shows how the good MS guys reached it  alright in a Windows 7 "standard" install.

But you are right, it depends more on the user's (wrong/absurd) habits than on sheer size of the volume, but besides the above reference I have seen more than one hard disk with thousands (really thousands) of (possibly - let's say - of dubious provenance) MP3's with the file name composed of the song title AND the singer AND the Author AND the year AND the label AND comments like "this_is_a_cool_one_must_give_a_copy_to_George_and_one_to_Franck" :w00t::ph34r: all put together in a directory like "Music" or "Downloaded Stuff".

jaclaz
 

That's when happens when they opened the can of worms and extended it from 8.3 to 255 characters.3

As for categorizing that is the best way to go as R L stated.  A lot of times saving websites it creates its own long set of filenames and eventually some pages cannot be saved in its entirety so you will have to manually truncate them to shorter lengths.  But if you want to preserver those long MP3s sometimes it is best to shorten it enough where it is recognizable then create a separate text file where the long original filename is pasted so you can reference it back.  Another problem is moving long filenames that reached 255 characters.3 cap.  Sometimes you can't move or copy them without shortening them first.

DOS has more issues with these long filenames I'm sure which could be the reason directory listing corruption occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rloew said:

I was referring to FDISK and my RFDISK, not a Partition Type such as NTFS.

FDISK can crash, destroying ALL Partition information, if there are too many Drives. A Disk Imager won't fix that unless you have already saved the entire Drive.

Doesn't matter if it's RDISK or a 3rd party partition manager.  FDISK has "never" crashed on me and if it were to freeze somehow it doesn't actually perform any changes until you exit out of the program to DOS.  Also you should only connect one device to partition at a time removing/disconnecting any other USB or IDE/SATA connected drives.  That is the best way to partition and ensure you aren't looking at the wrong drive when partitioning in case of a mistake.  FDISK is only done once to create all the partitions on the drive and that's it.  You never go back and delete and readd later unless it's a test system.  It's always a complete deletion of all partitions and then formatting them if necessary.  Even some of these 3rd party partition managers I wouldn't mess with on a drive that has sensitive data.  Sticks to OSs on a 128GB or smaller drive and storing essential data via external USB hard drives is the best way to go.  Less headache if the boot drive gets corrupted you aren't mixing your OS with your data and having to move all that to another drive before repartitioning and reformatting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 20 years ago I developed a DDO to make a 64GB Hard Drive look like 8 8GB Hard Drives to support DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1.

When I ran FDISK, it crashed without any further input. It wrote text over the MBR and every Extended Partition Record on all 9 Drives (8 above plus the Boot Drive). It took quite a while to repair everything.

External USB Hard Drives are far slower than internal Drives.

My 98SE Boot Partition is 8GB, but the Drive is 4TB and it is nearly full.

I reconfigure my Partitions fairly often as I add new OSes or consolidate Partitions.

I use a customized CD for Installing Windows 98SE with my Patches already implemented so I don't take any risks with the 137GB limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rloew said:

Almost 20 years ago I developed a DDO to make a 64GB Hard Drive look like 8 8GB Hard Drives to support DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1.

When I ran FDISK, it crashed without any further input. It wrote text over the MBR and every Extended Partition Record on all 9 Drives (8 above plus the Boot Drive). It took quite a while to repair everything.

External USB Hard Drives are far slower than internal Drives.

My 98SE Boot Partition is 8GB, but the Drive is 4TB and it is nearly full.

I reconfigure my Partitions fairly often as I add new OSes or consolidate Partitions.

I use a customized CD for Installing Windows 98SE with my Patches already implemented so I don't take any risks with the 137GB limit.

Well 20 years ago would put it back to 1997.  But reading what you said you had a 64GB Hard Drive and trying to mimic 8 physical hard drives to run DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1.  Now I've done 8 8GB partitions before straight on FDISK.  In fact I've done 128MB, 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB FAT 16 and 4GB, 8GB FAT32 partitions with FDISK.  The Primary will be 2GB FAT 16 Boot.  Then the rest of the drive space will be the Extended Partition up to the 128GB limit if it is over 128GB you don't want to have the extended partition cross into it.  Then you will create Logical drives.  The 8GB was a perfect size back then for FAT32 because the AUS didn't get too big so I stayed at 8192 MB.  I double checked my input figures.  You will need to use 8189 and it will show up at 8197.

If you use 8190 or higher it will cross over the 8GB marker and use a higher AUS.

I'm not sure if you are aware there are ways to force FAT16 and FAT32 on FDISK.

Now the reason since I don't know the exact computer specs you did this on was FDISK didn't recognize the drive through your DDO.  If you had not used your DDO and the computer could see the entire 64GB drive in the BIOS then FDISK 98SE v1.0 should have no problem partitioning it.  If your BIOS was constrained at the time not able to utilize drives of that capacity then you were asking for trouble when creating your own DDO and then using the 98SE FDISK to try and partition a drive that probably wasn't meant to work over a DDO.  If you hooked up that same 64GB drive today I can tell you for sure as long as the Motherboard can identify its full capacity you should be able to partition that with 98SE FDISK v1.0 without a problem as I've done drives all the way to 128GB without any issues even on SSDs.

You just have to know the exact FDISK capacity MB numbers to input correctly if you want a specific partition size.  Now I wouldn't mess around with it over 128GB although I have successfully used it with a 320GB that has been running for over 5 years straight but I used 64GB FAT32 partitions.  After the first 128GB I would only use NTFS partitions if you want to allocate the extra space.  DOS won't touch beyond the 128GB and can't natively see NTFS so you can't self corrupt your files accidentally copying into > 128GB region.  The just make sure the OS supports over 128GB if it is 9X/ME/2K/XP with a patch.  Vista and higher all support over 128GB without corruption.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point entirely. Of course I know how to Partition with FDISK.

DOS 6.2 does not support LBA so it can only address 8GB. I mapped the 64GB Drive into 8 8GB Drives so that DOS 6.2 could use more than 8GB on it.

The BIOS was not the issue. Windows 98SE and DOS 7.1 had no problem accessing the multiple 8GB Partitions as one Physical Drive. I even patched the BIOS to support 2TiB.

FDISK could handle the Disk when the DDO was not loaded. The crash occurred when FDISK thought there were nine 8GB Hard Drives. I suspect the same thing would have happened if you hooked up nine small Drives.

Since I customized the Partition Setup, I couldn't use FDISK to create it. I only ran FDISK to verify it, not expecting it to crash and destroy everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, rloew said:

You missed the point entirely. Of course I know how to Partition with FDISK.

DOS 6.2 does not support LBA so it can only address 8GB. I mapped the 64GB Drive into 8 8GB Drives so that DOS 6.2 could use more than 8GB on it.

The BIOS was not the issue. Windows 98SE and DOS 7.1 had no problem accessing the multiple 8GB Partitions as one Physical Drive. I even patched the BIOS to support 2TiB.

FDISK could handle the Disk when the DDO was not loaded. The crash occurred when FDISK thought there were nine 8GB Hard Drives. I suspect the same thing would have happened if you hooked up nine small Drives.

Since I customized the Partition Setup, I couldn't use FDISK to create it. I only ran FDISK to verify it, not expecting it to crash and destroy everything.

That's where the problem occurred.  If you had access to the 98SE FDISK v1.0.  You could have partitioned the first partition as FAT16 2GB first.  As for why you chose to use DOS 6.22 only and not take advantage of the newer DOS 7.10 to work with the drive itself is curious.  Are there some DOS 6.22 specific programs that did not work properly in DOS 7.10?

Reboot the computer and pop in your DOS 6.22 bootable disk.

At the DOS Prompt FORMAT C:/S

Let it finish formatting the 2GB partition.  Now the Primary partition will be DOS 6.22 bootable only.

Now you can reboot back into 98SE DOS via Floppy.

run the 98SE FDISK v1.0 program and create the Extended DOS Partition say 62GB since the first 2GB is for the FAT16.

Make the Logical Drives D: E: F: G: H: I: J: K: All with be 8GB FAT32 except K will be around 6GB.

Format D: through K:

Copy your 98SE CD folder to the K:\98SECD

go to the K:\98SECD

setup/is

let it finish a complete 98SE installation.

You will find after this is complete in your 98SE DOS Bootloader you will see an option to boot to DOS 6.22.

Since the DOS 6.22 resides on the FAT16 Primary Partition you can access the entire 2GB with no problem.

If you need to access any other files from within DOS 6.22 you will have to reboot back and run in the 98SE DOS and copy those files onto the C:.

According to this link DOS 6.22 was capped to 2GB FAT16.  Even 95A had this limit.  It wasn't until 95B that FAT32 became possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DOS_operating_systems

If you truly wanted to keep it PURE DOS 6.22 bootable only with Windows 3.1 you could still use just the 98SE FDISK v1.0 and create multiple 2GB FAT16 partitions which could go from C: to Z: which gives you 24 possible DOS letters.  48GB of the 64GB would have been accessible in this case and the rest would sit unused in DOS 6.22.

As for how many drives were possible to hookup if we are dating ourselves back to 1997?  This was IDE and pre-SATA 2003.  The most IDE drives that could be hooked up at least for consumer motherboards was 2 IDE controllers each with their own master and slave drives.  The maximum of 4 IDE hard disk drives was possible then as I even tried to reach the formidable 1TB barrier using 4 320GB hard drives.  This meant no IDE optical drives.

So if DOS 6.22 wasn't programmed to handle more than 4 IDE Hard drives at the time it is possible FDISK may not have forseen someone using that many hard drives at once or tricking it using your DDO.  But I always used one hard drive connected when partitioning with FDISK so I have never seen this problem you describe come up.  A few times I have used two physical drives hooked up and FDISK does have the option to select which drive you wish to focus on.

I will say it is strange if you only ran 98SE FDISK v1.0 and did not do any operations since I assume it crashed right away when you ran it from the DOS Prompt without first seeing the main menu come up.  It shouldn't do any write operations on it until you actually start deleting partitions or creating them.  But from my experience a few times I have warm booted out of the FDISK program after doing such operations without exiting to DOS first and the previous FAT was still intact and untouched.

Your situation and use was a bit extreme I think even for people of that era.  Again I don't know what motherboard make/model you were testing this on do you recall?  Perhaps it was on an AMD motherboard?  For Intel this has never happened to me once and like I said most even up to the Pentium 4 had only 4 possible IDE drives that could be hooked up.  There might be some Server class motherboards that might be able to hook up more than 4 IDE drives at once.  But then again even with 4 Hard drives installed at once it would be a nightmare to even consider partitioning if the other hard drives had multiple partitions you would get about 6 drive letters max per drive in this scenario.  Most of the time a single drive I partitioned depending on what its use was for I would exceed 6 drive letters partitioning so it was always necessary to reduce the amount of physical drives installed when doing the FDISK operation as when you exceed the Z: you can't manipulate the partitions since it must have a physical drive letter to be removed.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time I did not know a way of running Windows 3.1 from DOS 7.

Your partitioning and installing instructions for novices sounds stupider every time you repeat it.

In addition to being limited to FAT16, DOS 6.2 also does not support LBA, so it can only address 8GB, not 48GB.

I have a Soundblaster Card that supported an additional IDE Controller making 6 IDE Drives possible. Maybe more with more cards.  As far as I remember there are 6 sets of Ports defined for IDE use allowing 12 IDE Drives.
I have a Motherboard that supports 4 IDE and 4 SATA Drives. Add just one IDE or SATA card and you are up to 12.

Normally FDISK behaves itself and doesn't change things until exit. In this case it apparently overran some code and jumped to the Code that wrote the changes without having set them up in the first place.
As I said, I had no intentions of changing anything when I ran FDISK. I just wanted to check my work.

The Computer only had two Drives. The 8GB Boot Drive and the 64GB Data Drive.
I ended up with 4 2GB Partitions on the 8GB Drive, 8 2GB Partitions on the first two mappings of the 64GB Drive, and 6 8GB Partitions on the remaining 6 mappings.
DOS 6.2 saw the 12 2GB Partitions through the DDO. Windows 98 saw all 18 Partitions without the DDO. I added custom MBR Blocks so that both OSes saw what they needed to see.
My Multi-Boot Profile was setup so that DOS 6.2 and 98SE shared the same Partition using a special PBR in RFDISK.

My RFDISK and RFORMAT do not have the 24 Partition limit.

I also have a Drive Mounter that can add a Drive Letter dynamically. If I write a Dismounter, I could swap in an unlimited number of Partitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, rloew said:

At the time I did not know a way of running Windows 3.1 from DOS 7.

Your partitioning and installing instructions for novices sounds stupider every time you repeat it.

In addition to being limited to FAT16, DOS 6.2 also does not support LBA, so it can only address 8GB, not 48GB.

I have a Soundblaster Card that supported an additional IDE Controller making 6 IDE Drives possible. Maybe more with more cards.  As far as I remember there are 6 sets of Ports defined for IDE use allowing 12 IDE Drives.
I have a Motherboard that supports 4 IDE and 4 SATA Drives. Add just one IDE or SATA card and you are up to 12.

Normally FDISK behaves itself and doesn't change things until exit. In this case it apparently overran some code and jumped to the Code that wrote the changes without having set them up in the first place.
As I said, I had no intentions of changing anything when I ran FDISK. I just wanted to check my work.

The Computer only had two Drives. The 8GB Boot Drive and the 64GB Data Drive.
I ended up with 4 2GB Partitions on the 8GB Drive, 8 2GB Partitions on the first two mappings of the 64GB Drive, and 6 8GB Partitions on the remaining 6 mappings.
DOS 6.2 saw the 12 2GB Partitions through the DDO. Windows 98 saw all 18 Partitions without the DDO. I added custom MBR Blocks so that both OSes saw what they needed to see.
My Multi-Boot Profile was setup so that DOS 6.2 and 98SE shared the same Partition using a special PBR in RFDISK.

My RFDISK and RFORMAT do not have the 24 Partition limit.

I also have a Drive Mounter that can add a Drive Letter dynamically. If I write a Dismounter, I could swap in an unlimited number of Partitions.

Again it gets more baffling. The only program you couldn't get to run in 98SE DOS was Windows 3.1?  Are you seriously telling me Windows 3.1 did not work in 98SE DOS?  I think I had tested this way back then and didn't have any problems.  I'll have to dig up the old Windows 3.1 Floppies to confirm this.  The other question is what Windows 3.1 software did you have that didn't function in 98SE or XP?

As for the 8GB limit that's if you are sticking to DOS 6.22 that's your own fault for limiting yourself.  I'm suggesting a way to maintain compatibility to use both FAT16 for the DOS 6.22 partition and also be able to access the remaining portion of your drives you could still access the D: E: F: as 2GB FAT16 partitions and partition the rest as FAT32 partitions.  Also my method would allow the option to boot to Dos 6.22 or 98SE DOS which is rare to see on modern systems.  Today I would just skip DOS 6.22 altogether.  Is there some DOS 6.22 software that didn't run properly in 98SE DOS that you can list?  In my opinion you aren't a gamer so any DOS utilities should function in 98SE DOS.

What you find stupider is I'm keeping it simple with 98SE FDISK v1.0 since you hadn't thought of using my technique but insist on using a self created DDO which backfired on you.  Obviously it infuriates you since it isn't your RFDISK method.

You also haven't addressed the fact you were incorrect that the EXIT command does not trigger running Windows if you booted straight to 98SE DOS.  It only triggers relaunching Windows "if" you had first loaded Windows and exited to PURE 98SE DOS.  And if I think back further maybe even Windows 3.10 had this same behavior.

You obviously glossed over what I stated.  I said that the first 2GB would be for the DOS 6.22 the remainder could be FAT32 to keep it simple without making multiple partitions consuming more drive letters.  Any data could be copied off the FAT32 partitions in 98SEDOS over to the C: if needed.  The other option is creating C: D: E: and F: as 2GB FAT16 and then G: through X: the remainder FAT32 partitions which could be 8GB if that's what you were targeting per partition.  You also missed the point that the bootmenu allows you to choose between DOS 6.22 or 98SE DOS so you can access the entire drive when needed beyond the 8GB.

As for the Sound Blaster IDE expansion idea.  First does the BIOS recognize this card as the primary IDE boot controller or does it only recognize the IDE devices via use of a driver?  Which Creative Labs Sound Blaster card model is this?  I have a whole bunch here I can examine.

Name me some consumer motherboards make and models during 1997 that had 6 IDE devices possible through the motherboard and not through some addon card.  Even my old P4 still had two IDE ports.  Maybe some special edition ones had 6 possible IDE devices then that would at least be testable with FDISK.  But you'll need 4 onboard IDE ports to confirm your FDISK issue if you really believe too many IDE devices were connected that caused the corruption issue.  SATA drives in 1997?  Please list the motherboard make and model.  SATA ports didn't really come into existence till around 2003.

I have some more modern ones that have both IDE and SATA controllers but those were late stage P4 and usually started around socket 775 CPUs.

Most of what you were doing was experimenting.  Testing your DDO and how FDISK saw it.  If you were focused on making partition managers maybe this would have been more useful if you partnered up with Partition Magic and could have standardized something that even Microsoft would have adopted.  It's a good thing this was not tested on an actual hard drive with vital data you couldn't lose.  That's why most people would rather use a Partition Manager that is trusted and tested and I'm sure Microsoft had tested their FDISK for as long as they felt was necessary until the Windows Disk Management became a replacement when NTFS was the new standard.  FAT16 and FAT32 had their uses and I still use them for DOS to XP partitions.

Also how you are going to navigate in DOS to access each partition if you exceeded the Z: drive?

Even when I mentioned this prior how is your Drive Mounter that can add a Drive Letter dynamically?  If you are at Z: after consuming C: to Z: to assigned partitions what will the next assigned drive letter be?  And will it be accessible under 98SE DOS or DOS 6.22?

The only thing I can say is you might be able to come up create code for special utilities but most of these utilities will go unnoticed unless you spread it for free for people to use.  Once major adoption occurs then releasing revised versions with more features you could charge a licensing fee and profit.  But if you start off charging for every program it's hard to see it gain any major wide usage.  There will also be unforeseen bugs which haven't been ironed out and a lot of bugs are revealed by freeware users to be patched.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing baffling. I said Windows 3.1 didn't run from DOS 7. I never mentioned other programs. Some of my System Programs had to be upgraded to run on Dos 7.
Windows 3.1 is intentionally blocked from running from DOS 7. Someone found a way to remove that block but I did not know it at the time.

Having DOS 6.2 to run Windows 3.1, I wanted to expand it's capability to more than 8GB per Drive, so I developed the DDO. Remember this was the 20th Century, I don't use DOS 6.2 now.

Your Instructions are stupid because they are written for a 5 year old and I already told you I am not interested in configuring any system in that way.
The DDO did not backfire. It worked fine. Only FDISK was the problem. I was able to repair everything. I eventually wrote RFDISK to facilitate Partition editing years later. It doesn't support this configuration in any case.

I NEVER said that EXIT boots into Windows if you go straight into DOS. EXIT terminates the Second Instance of COMMAND.COM and then continues the normal boot sequence into Windows. Try reading what I said before commenting.

I didn't gloss over anything, I rejected it due to lack of relevance. I wanted to extend the access of DOS 6.2 to more Hard Disk Space. Access from DOS 7 was never an issue.

The Soundblaster provides a DOS Driver and Windows Driver making it a Tertiary Controller. I don't remember the Model but it was an ISA Card.

I said 6 IDE Register set I/O Address Ranges were defined back then, nothing about implementations. I have never seen a Motherboard use more than two. Any additional Controllers use Native Mode.

Since FDISK uses the BIOS, it doesn't care if a Drive is IDE or SATA. The experiment is much more feasible now than back then.

Of course I was experimenting. I did get the DDO to work. I just happened to be curious what FDISK would show, not expecting it to cause damage.

You cannot navigate Partitions after Z:. They are not mounted.
The Drive Mounter requires that at least one Drive Letter be free. That is why I said, I would have to develop a Drive Dismounter to bank Partitions.

The types of utilities I develop are not amenable to your freeware approach. They do their job and there is little room for more features. Very few would buy the upgrades. Less than the number who would pay upfront.
That would be like giving away Windows and charging for a Browser. I run a Business not a Charity.

Paying customers are much faster reporting bugs than freeware customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×