Luchezar Georgiev schreef:
Yes, DOSFSCK 2.10 (27.I.2004) works for small FAT32 volumes only. For
example, it works for my 2000 MB FAT32 volume, but for my 25 GB FAT32
volume, it says:
Checking whether we can access the last sector of the filesystem
Seek to 26551170560:No error
But I think this
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:20:49 +0200, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32.
Yes, DOSFSCK 2.10 (27.I.2004) works for small FAT32 volumes only. For
example, it works for my 2000 MB FAT32 volume, but for my 25 GB FAT32
volume, it says:
Checking w
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:20 +0200, Aitor wrote:
If we can live without a true SMARTDRV, we can live without a true
SCANDISK too.
The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?)
that it was mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I
don't think there is
Johnson Lam schreef:
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.
there does not exist a single CHKDSK/SCANDISK which can run on 16bit processors
AND support FAT32.
there does not exist a single CHKDS
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
Johnson Lam schreef:
If DOSFSCK can do the job similar or better than SCANDISK, then we
don't need to insist on the name. For me, I think using the name
DOSFSCK is better because it's NOT a direct replacement of SCANDISK.
problem is DOSFSCK cannot do this yet. it is broken for at least FAT32.
It'
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:48:20 +0200, you wrote:
Sorry for breaking in ...
>The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?) that it was
>mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I don't think there is any
>over "SCANDISK" (I may be wrong).
I'll think this
>Of course! Neither do we call LBACACHE a SMARTDRV, don't we?
>If we can live without a true SMARTDRV, we can live without a true
>SCANDISK too.
The case is not comparable either. I seem to recall (Alain was it you?) that it was
mentioned copyright issues over the label "SMARTDRV", but I don
I disagree here: the important thing is to get the job done. After that
if there is a nice interface, it can be great, but not essencial. In
DR-DOS you only have one CHKDSK without UI. Why is the focus of
scandisk on the interface I cannot imagine, even to the point of
someone making an empty i
Alain escribió:
I disagree here: the important thing is to get the job done. After
that if there is a nice interface, it can be great, but not essencial.
In DR-DOS you only have one CHKDSK without UI. Why is the focus of
scandisk on the interface I cannot imagine, even to the point of
someone
Aitor Santamari'a Merino escreveu:
Luchezar Georgiev escribio':
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:08:32 -0300, Alain wrote:
about fat32 testing: I believe a working DOSFSCK 2.10 just what is
needed (not what is whished for).
Actually, I agree! If Eric can say "FreeDOS SMARTDRV is LBACACHE", why
not s
Luchezar Georgiev escribio':
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:08:32 -0300, Alain wrote:
about fat32 testing: I believe a working DOSFSCK 2.10 just what is
needed (not what is whished for).
Actually, I agree! If Eric can say "FreeDOS SMARTDRV is LBACACHE", why
not say "FreeDOS SCANDISK is DOSFSCK"? ;-)
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:08:32 -0300, Alain wrote:
about fat32 testing: I believe a working DOSFSCK 2.10 just what is
needed (not what is whished for).
Actually, I agree! If Eric can say "FreeDOS SMARTDRV is LBACACHE", why not
say "FreeDOS SCANDISK is DOSFSCK"? ;-) DOSFSCK is not a SCANDISK, but
13 matches
Mail list logo
