Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: FAT12 vs FAT16 | Date | 23 Aug 1997 00:04:49 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970822175945.130A-100000@chaos.analogic.com> By author: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@analogic.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Not if it's a disk supported by MS-DOS or created using MS-DOS tools. > MS-DOS format will not (read cannot) make such a disk. Even with its > media type/size/heads options, it doesn't have the code necessary to > produce a disk under any other rules because it calculates the > clusters not you, and it uses the 4085 cluster rule for writing the FAT. > > Just because, in principle I can make a disk with one cluster and a 16-bit > FAT, does not mean that it is a MS-DOS disk. MS-DOS will not understand > such a disk so no other OS should bother with such a deviation either. >
I once came across a DOS floppy formatted with FAT16; I think some (OEM?) version of DOS 2.x or 3.x always formatted FAT16. Surprised the living daylight out of me...
-hpa -- PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
| |