Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!noao!arizona!naucse!wew
From: wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: format under 3.2
Message-ID: <475@naucse.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 19:45:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: naucse.475
Posted: Wed Oct 21 19:45:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 08:16:12 EDT
References: <394@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona
Lines: 21
Summary: Reading other formats?

In article <394@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, martin@iris.ucdavis.edu (Bruce K. Martin Jr.) writes:
> 
> 
> Can someone explaine why if a disk is formatted under MS-DOS 3.2, it
> can be read under 3.2 or older, but if a disk is formatted, say under
> 3.0 or 2.x, it (sometimes) cannot be read under 3.2.
> 
> I suspect there is a bit set somewhere in the FAT, but don't know for sure.
> It is one of those annoying things that is causing us headaches.
> Is there anyway to get around it?
> 


You've got a problem.  I am the PC technical coordinator for NAU
and we have not experienced that problem at all.  We even have
a few people using DOS 1.x

I would suspect the hardware before format differences.  From
DOS 2.0 DOS has been using a standard 9 sector per track format.
ALL of the earlier formats are supported under this.  I am 
surprised if you can get DOS 1.1 to support a DOS 2+ disk.