Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 4.0 problems
Message-ID: <2449e4c1@ralf>
Date: 17 Apr 89 12:21:05 GMT
Sender: ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To: <1656@gbmatl.UUCP>

In article <1656@gbmatl.UUCP>, gbm@gbmatl.UUCP (gary mckenney) writes:
}I've written some copy-protection software for a company that would not perform
}correctly under DOS 4.0.
}
}If I'm not mistaken, DOS 4.0 can have a > 32MB hard disk partition.  In order
}to achieve this they had to increase the size of the directory entries
}therefore breaking everyones software expecting only a 16 byte directory entry.

Directory entries are 32 bytes (are you perhaps thinking of 16-bit FAT
entries?).  There are ten unused bytes in directory entries from versions 1.1
through 3.x, so I doubt there is any need to increase the size of directory
entries for 4.0 (DOS 1.0 had twelve unused bytes--it didn't store the time,
only the date).

}I don't know specifically what changes have been made (if any) to the FAT table

I understand that >32 meg partitions use 32-bit FAT entries instead of 12 or 16
bit entries.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.