On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:20:49 +0200, you wrote:
Hi,
>problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32.
CHKDSK also.
>basically this means 3 programs:
>
>[1]*CHKDSK
>[2]*CHKDSK + GUI, call it SCANDISK (or whatever you prefer)
>[3]*DOSFSCK
>
>[1] requires 8086 but is limited to FAT16
>[2] requires 8086, limited to FAT16, but can use external DOSFSCHK as engine if
>processor is 386+
> simply a checkbox "use advanced checking engine if present"
>[3] requires 386 / DPMI
>
> for [2], I prefer it to not being only a GUI (and thus always requiring an external
> engine,
> be it CHKDSK or DOSFSCK) but include the CHKDSK engine by default.
Should be easy to do, but since the main problem - FAT32, still not
fully supported, only make a GUI+CHKDSK is not enough, and need extra
time and effort to code.
Imre is busy, and no one can pick up this job now.
> [3] is a standalone program, but can be called by SCANDISK to act as an engine for
> FAT32 checking.
>
> since [3] is DPMI (Protected Mode) it's not possible to combine both engines in a
> executable
> that still needs to run on 8086.
If a single EXE of GUI need to do so many engine checking, why not
improve the DOSFSCK? It'll take much longer time to code a GUI
checking for different engines.
>that still keeps us with a problem: FAT32 drive on sub-386 systems.
>and another one: minimum amount of RAM for 386 is 1MB ? would that be enough for
>DOSFSCK?
Then we may need to fine-tune it by removing unnecessary code inside.
Unlucky is I can't code, lucky is DOSFSCK is OpenSource.
Maybe someone can help to improve it.
>let's say at leat 2.5MB free RAM is required (typically on systems with at least 4MB
>total RAM)
>
>{1}if (cpu<386) OR (available extended_RAM< 2.5MB) AND Partition=FAT32 ->
>"sorry, we cannot scan a FAT32 partition on a system with a sub-386 processor or less
>than 2.5MB
>free RAM"
>
>{2}if (cpu<386) OR (available extended_RAM< 2.5MB) AND Partition=FAT16 ->
>"Sorry, DOSFSCK engine only available on systems 386+ processor and more than 2.5MB
>free"
>"using CHKDSK engine instead"
>
>{3}if (cpu>386) AND (available extended_RAM> 2.5MB) AND Partition=FAT32 ->
>"the DOSFSCK engine is required to scan this partition"
>
>but when DOSFSCK not found:
>"cannot continue checking FAT32 partition, required engine files DOSFSCK and CWSDPMI
>not found"
>
>{4}if (cpu>386) AND (available extended_RAM> 2.5MB) AND Partition=FAT16 ->
>"Using your preferred scanning engine: %scan_engine%
>
>but when DOSFSCK not found:
>"required external engine files DOSFSCK and CWSDPMI not found"
>"using internal CHKDSK engine instead"
I can understand what you mean, but the problem is we don't have a
direct replacement of CHKDSK/SCANDISK. This transition period I use
both for myself but in future we need to consider a better way to do
the job.
During this period, we must have a better plan than temporary code a
GUI for CHKDSK/DOSFSCK. The ideal program should work like
CHKDSK/DOSFSCK ... maybe an EXE with or without GUI but it must
support all FAT12, 16 and FAT32.
Currently not much can do except someone will like to pick the job or
wait for Imre.
Rgds,
Johnson.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
