Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!watstat!dmurdoch
From: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: DOS 4.01 and SHARE.EXE
Message-ID: <1437@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 19:00:05 GMT
References: <25ccd167.2d5d@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <6307@cps3xx.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@maytag.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 18

In article <6307@cps3xx.UUCP> gcook@cps3xx.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes:
>So, I'm asking, is this true?  Nobody has experienced any problems without
>share loaded?  I was under the impression that share keeps track of 
>where the files are and without it, it may not be able to find a file
>it is looking for.  Am I way off base?  Does anybody know for sure
>the facts?

Programs that use the DOS 1.x style FCB file services can't handle disks
with more than 64K of sectors, unless SHARE is loaded.  Part of the reserved
section of a file control block contains a single word giving the disk
sector of the directory entry.  I don't know what will happen if you
try to run one of these ancient programs on a huge disk with too many sectors,
but wouldn't really want to try.

This information is contained in Ralf Brown's interrupt list, available
somewhere near you.

Duncan Murdoch