<CT> Q re FAT32 & OS Override

  • From: "MOY, WILLIAM" <BMOY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:07:15 -0500

Hi All,

I remember a series of postings re the efficiency of using FAT 32.  I also
read elsewhere that using FAT 32 may actually give you less room on your
hard drive since a small file saved may actually claim and waste space on
large-sized clusters.  But then, I understand that a new version fixed the
problem and now it is more efficient than using FAT 16.  (Let me know if
this is wrong.)  So the question is how can one implement the better FAT 32
and how can one tell what version is installed?

Another problem dilemma:  I own a few laptops which are dedicated DOS 5
systems.  I believe the bootstraps are hard coded in BIOS(??), EPROM or
somewhere and does not actually boot from a disk.    Omnibook 300, 425, 430
are such animals --and I believe the boot files are not even on their
Systems ROM Card.  On the writeable c: drive I see pseudo boot filenames via
DIR with zero file size length.  Checking with MEM, I see the default boot
OS files loaded in RAM.  Does anyone know if one can override this DOS
version limitation by force booting from a file directly into RAM, in
essence overwriting IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM in their loaded
position in RAM?  Would this theoretically be a work-around to this
limitation?

Thanks for any pointers or brain-storming ideas you can give.

Again, here's my cheers towards successful FLN developments with
Calmira/Windows3.1!!

-Bill
--
To unsubscribe, send a message to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.org



Other related posts:

  • » <CT> Q re FAT32 & OS Override