28 Mar
2005
28 Mar
'05
3:48 p.m.
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Was there ever a way to put more than 512 files in the root directory?
Some sort of patch or utility?
Did previous or subsequent versions of MS-DOS allow more entries in the
root?
Another question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
At any rate, what I'm trying to do is overcome the limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this?
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
28 Mar
28 Mar
4:06 p.m.
Sellam wrote:
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Hey! Weren't you one of the people complaining that cctalk isn't
a PC support forum?
Anyhow, I think you can do it if you use something other than the DOS
format command to create the filesystem. For instance, with the Linux
utility "mkdosfs", you can specify "-r root-dir-entries". The man
page
says that the default is 112 or 224 for floppies, and 512 for hard disks.
It doesn't say anything about what the upper limit might be.
I just tried it using a floppy image file rather than a real floppy
disk. I created the image file like this:
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=floppy.img bs=1024 count=1440
1440+0 records in
1440+0 records out
First I tried the default format:
$ /sbin/mkdosfs -v floppy.img
mkdosfs 2.8 (28 Feb 2001)
floppy.img has 2 heads and 18 sectors per track,
logical sector size is 512,
using 0xf0 media descriptor, with 2880 sectors;
file system has 2 12-bit FATs and 1 sector per cluster.
FAT size is 9 sectors, and provides 2847 clusters.
Root directory contains 224 slots.
Volume ID is 42489a44, no volume label.
The I tried using the "-r" option to specify more root directory
entries:
$ /sbin/mkdosfs -v -r 1024 floppy.img
mkdosfs 2.8 (28 Feb 2001)
floppy.img has 2 heads and 18 sectors per track,
logical sector size is 512,
using 0xf0 media descriptor, with 2880 sectors;
file system has 2 12-bit FATs and 1 sector per cluster.
FAT size is 9 sectors, and provides 2797 clusters.
Root directory contains 1024 slots.
Volume ID is 42489a4e, no volume label.
I don't have a real blank floppy disk handy to test, so I did the
next best thing. I mounted the image as a virtual drive A with
VMware. Windows XP sees it as a floppy just fine.
In a Linux directory that is exported as a Samba share, I created
676 files that each contain one byte:
$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1 count=676 | split -b 1
676+0 records in
676+0 records out
In Windows, I copied the 676 files to the A drive. It worked fine.
So Windows XP apparently can deal with a floppy with a root
directory larger than 512 entries, if you can create one somehow.
If you aren't able to run the Linux mkdosfs command yourself, I can
send you a ZIP file containing an otherwise empty floppy image
created as described above, and you can use rawrite.exe or equivalent
to write it onto a real floppy disk.
Eric
4:13 p.m.
I wrote about Linux mkdosfs on a 1440K floppy:
It doesn't say anything about what the upper limit
might be.
It appears that the practical upper bound is 2694 directory entries,
which leaves 2694 clusters available for allocation to files. Any more
directory entries, and you wind up with fewer clusters than directory
entries, thus you can't have all of the directory entries actually in
use for non-zero-length files.
On the other hand, due to the volume label, and the use of multiple
directory entries to represent long file names, more than 2694 directory
entries might actually be useful.
I can't really imagine why anyone would want that many files in a single
root directory on a floppy disk, though.
Eric
29 Mar
29 Mar
7:09 a.m.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Eric Smith wrote:
Sellam wrote:
Excuse me. There's a MAJOR difference between an MS-DOS 3.3 question of
which there is little info available online (yes, I looked) and an XP
question of which there is TONS of info online.
Let's not play semantical games, please.
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Hey! Weren't you one of the people complaining that cctalk isn't
a PC support forum? If you aren't able to run the Linux mkdosfs
command yourself, I can
send you a ZIP file containing an otherwise empty floppy image
created as described above, and you can use rawrite.exe or equivalent
to write it onto a real floppy disk.
Thanks for the offer, but I'd need to format a hard drive thusly. This is
a decent solution if I can't come up with anything else.
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7:20 a.m.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:09:26 -0800 (PST), Vintage Computer Festival
<vcf at siconic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Eric Smith wrote:
> Sellam wrote:
> > MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root directory. I have a
> > need to put more than this.
> If you aren't able to run the Linux mkdosfs
command yourself, I can
> send you a ZIP file containing an otherwise empty floppy image
> created as described above, and you can use rawrite.exe or equivalent
> to write it onto a real floppy disk.
Thanks for the offer, but I'd need to format a
hard drive thusly. This is
a decent solution if I can't come up with anything else.
The image could be mailed and rawritten to a floppy (or turned into a
bootable .iso), and something like Ghost for Unix could be used to
expand the filesystem to the appropriate hard disk. At least, I
-think- that could work if one booted G4U off a CD if the filesystem
was on a floppy or vice versa.
-dhbarr.
PS: Just a reminder not to be confuse about Ghost for Linux, an
apparently non-credited rip of Ghost for Unix.
10:13 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Vintage Computer Festival once stated:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Eric Smith wrote:
I did a similar thing to format a 120M harddrive for a laptop. I was able
to fdisk the harddrive in question, but couldn't format it. So on my Linux
system, I made a file the appropriate size of the partition (using "dd" and
/dev/zero), then ran the appropriate mkfs command over the file, then
mounted it, copied what I needed, umounted it, zipped it up (it fortunately
fit on a floppy) and was able to decompress and write it to the harddrive on
the laptop.
From there I was able to bootstrap the rest of the way.
-spc (Did have to recompile my Linux system to support mounting of files)
If you aren't able to run the Linux mkdosfs
command yourself, I can
send you a ZIP file containing an otherwise empty floppy image
created as described above, and you can use rawrite.exe or equivalent
to write it onto a real floppy disk.
Thanks for the offer, but I'd need to format a hard drive thusly. This is
a decent solution if I can't come up with anything else. 
11:24 p.m.
I have an original Microsoft MS-DOS (3.3) User's Guide / User's Reference
(in the original box) which clearly states on page 34;
"The maximum number of files or directories that the root directory may
contain is "usually" 112 for a double-sided, double-density, 5.25-inch
floppy disk. The maximum number of entries in the root directory of a 1.44
megabyte, 3.5-inch floppy disk is 224. This maximum capacity for a root
directory depends upon "how" the disk is formatted. The number of
subdirectories on a disk is not restricted." No mention of hard drives on
this particular subject. (Internal quotes were added for emphasis).
Sometimes information exists if you know where to look. As with all
Microsoft "documentation" you have to try to decipher what the hell they are
really trying to say......
Steven C.
Sellam wrote:
Excuse me. There's a MAJOR difference between an
MS-DOS 3.3 question of
which there is little info available online (yes, I looked) and an XP
question of which there is TONS of info online.
11:32 p.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
Steven C.
11:33 p.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:32:43 -0800, Steven Canning
<cannings at earthlink.net> wrote:
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator
to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
My real C128 is in a box elsewhere, but VICE v1.14 gives me a CPU Jam
@ $7E97 when try this.
Perhaps this depends on 'unimplemented' opcodes and the VICE core
isn't perfectly emulating them?
-ethan
30 Mar
30 Mar
midnight
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:33 AM
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:32:43 -0800, Steven Canning
<cannings at earthlink.net> wrote:
Please post to cctalk or cctech but not both, it goes to the same place so
it ends up doubling.
Randy
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE
emulator to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
My real C128 is in a box elsewhere, but VICE v1.14 gives me a CPU Jam
@ $7E97 when try this.
Perhaps this depends on 'unimplemented' opcodes and the VICE core
isn't perfectly emulating them?
-ethan
12:05 a.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:00:04 -0600, Randy McLaughlin
<cctalk at randy482.com> wrote:
From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at
gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
Please post to cctalk or cctech but not both, it goes
to the same place so
it ends up doubling.
Yeah... sorry about that... it was unintentional... I did a "reply
all" and didn't notice that it was going to both lists.
-ethan
29 Mar
29 Mar
11:42 p.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
At 08:32 30/03/2005, you wrote:
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator to
try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
Vice says:
BREAK
PC SR AC XR YR SP
; 08000 71 0E 2D 06 F7
This is running in 40 col mode.
Cheers,
Ade.
30 Mar
30 Mar
4:38 a.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
Steven Canning wrote:
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator
to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
I have a C128D I need to pull out anyway. I'll try this this evening
if nobody gets to it before.
Doc
5:52 a.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
Does anybody
have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
I have a C128D I need to pull out anyway. I'll try this this evening
if nobody gets to it before.
7:06 a.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
At 14:52 30/03/2005, you wrote:
Actually, it's SYS 32800,123,45,6. You will need to be in BANK 15.
That worked....
Output is:
[quote begins]
Brought to you by...
Software:
Fred Bowen
Terry Ryan
Von Ertwine
Herdware:
Bil Herd
Dave Haynie
Frank Palaia
Link arms,don't make them.
[quote ends]
See a screen-grab here: http://helmies.org.uk/images/vice_c128_egg.jpg
Cheers!
Ade.
Does anybody have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator
to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
I have a C128D I need to pull out anyway. I'll try this this evening
if nobody gets to it before. 
10:52 a.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:52:35 -0800 (PST), Cameron Kaiser
<spectre at floodgap.com> wrote:
Actually, it's SYS 32800,123,45,6. You will need
to be in BANK 15.
Thanks, Cameron... that does it... works fine with VICE 1.14 (and
probably other versions as well).
-ethan
8:40 p.m.
New subject: Commodore 128 Easter Egg
Thanks to Cameron and Bill D. for pointing out my keyboard virus (i.e. typo:
32800 vs. 32400) for the Easter Egg.
Best regards, Steven C.
Does anybody
have a Commodore 128 or a VICE emulator to try this ?
1. Boot machine
2. Type: SYS 32400,123,45,6
3. A list of system programmers is displayed
I have a C128D I need to pull out anyway. I'll try this this evening
if nobody gets to it before. Actually, it's SYS 32800,123,45,6. You will need to
be in BANK 15.
31 Mar
31 Mar
1:45 a.m.
New subject: rsx11m v3.0 default account ?
I've picked up a an rd53 and it happens to have
rsx11m 3.0 with decnet and a basic +2 compiler.
Before overwriting the drive with bsd, I'd like to logon
and see what's there- are there any default accounts I could
try or is there a way to break the startup and bypass login?
I remember vms had a boot with parm altauth table ;)
h
2:21 a.m.
New subject: rsx11m v3.0 default account ?
Before you format it, perhaps it is a good idea to preserve the
contents with a dd and put it up on a website somewhere?
This will be good for people who wants to try RSX-11/M (like me :-)
but don't have the media..
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:45:18 -0500, Heinz Wolter <h.wolter at sympatico.ca> wrote:
I've picked up a an rd53 and it happens to have
rsx11m 3.0 with decnet and a basic +2 compiler.
30 Mar
30 Mar
10:18 a.m.
New subject: using a DRV11 to run an IDE drive?
I've seen an old PC trick that uses the printer port and custom cable
to bit-bash interface an IDE hard drive or cdrom using a dos .sys driver.
Anyone think it's possible to do the same with a DRV-11 for the pdp11?
Features: built in BAR/WCR/CSR circuits, 16 bits in, 16 out. 6 function
bits,
Attention/Ready/Cycle Request/Bust handshake bits etc
Perhaps a small pld or fpga could use the spare handshake or function bits
to latch the 3 address bits for the IDE and generate the chip
select/read-write etc
while the 16 bit input and output busses could be joined via tri-state
buffers...
I'ts not a replacement for a scsi controller, but it beats hunting down the
hard
to find bus interface chips and provides a proven already working basic
interface.
I've got a dozen of the QBUS (and a few UNIBUS) DRx11 boards if someone
is interested in fooling with the idea. As a side note - I recall UW's CCNG
CE
dept fashioned an early MP cluster called using DRV11s to connect LSI11-2s
in the 80's.
regards
-h
28 Mar
28 Mar
4:23 p.m.
Why can't you create a subdirectory? If you fudge it somehow, chkdsk will
say that it's broken and offer to fix it.
At 03:48 PM 3/28/2005 -0800, you wrote:
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Was there ever a way to put more than 512 files in the root directory?
Some sort of patch or utility?
Did previous or subsequent versions of MS-DOS allow more entries in the
root?
Another question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
At any rate, what I'm trying to do is overcome the limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this?
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss
of enthusiasm." -- Sir Winston Churchill
--... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -...
tpeters at nospam.mixcom.com (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio)
"HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB ADDRESS http//www.mixweb.com/tpeters
43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square
EN53wc
WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, Cisco Certified CCNA
4:44 p.m.
Tom wrote:
If you fudge it somehow, chkdsk will
say that it's broken and offer to fix it.
Wanna bet?
I "fudged it somehow" using the Linux mkdosfs utility.
Here's the output from Windows XP chkdsk:
The type of the file system is FAT.
Volume Serial Number is 4248-9A4E
Windows is verifying files and folders...
6 percent completed. ....
12 percent completed.
19 percent completed.
25 percent completed..
32 percent completed..
38 percent completed...
44 percent completed...
51 percent completed...
57 percent completed....
64 percent completed....
70 percent completed.....
76 percent completed.....
83 percent completed.....
89 percent completed......
96 percent completed......
File and folder verification is complete.
Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.
1,432,064 bytes total disk space.
346,112 bytes in 676 files.
1,085,952 bytes available on disk.
512 bytes in each allocation unit.
2,797 total allocation units on disk.
2,121 allocation units available on disk.
I suppose it's possible that earlier versions of MS-DOS chkdsk
could complain, but I doubt that they do. The on-disk structures
are all correct according to Microsoft's published documentation
on the FAT file system format.
In the olden days (DOS 2.x), OEMs were *expected* to define new
disk geometries, etc., so it's not surprising that the code is
smart enough to use the parameters in the boot block, and follow
the FAT chain for the root directory, rather than actually having
a hard-coded constant. It's just the format command that is
somewhat inflexible.
Eric
6:54 p.m.
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
I seem to remember that the limit is actually 224.
Was there ever a way to put more than 512 files in the
root directory?
Some sort of patch or utility?
Nope. But 224 isn't an unreasonable limit because even on a 1.44MB each file
would be limited to no more than about 6K-7K apiece.
Another question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
Checking 6.22 right here... works fine (I did "subst d: c:\"). So yes, you
can.
At any rate, what I'm trying to do is overcome the
limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
SUBST won't help you do this unless you don't use a floppy at all, like:
subst a: c:\temp
...which works fine.
My question is: Why?
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
29 Mar
29 Mar
7:22 a.m.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
Hmm, cool.
I'm not using floppies at all. This is with hard disks.
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
It's definitely 512 on DOS 3.3.
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
I seem to remember that the limit is actually 224. Another
question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
Checking 6.22 right here... works fine (I did "subst d: c:\"). So yes,
you can. At any rate,
what I'm trying to do is overcome the limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
SUBST won't help you do this unless you don't use a floppy at all, like:
subst a: c:\temp
...which works fine. My question is: Why?
I'm restoring files from VHS backup tapes. The files were all originally
stored and backed up from the root directory. On the tapes I used to test
my process, none had more than 512 files archived. The backup software
only restores *to the same exact drive and path* that the files were
archived from (in this case C:\). I'm running into some tapes that have
more than 512 files backed up frm the root directory. These were done
back in the 1980s. I can't figure out how they did it, but there they
are.
Once a backup is made, you cannot add to the backup, so that's not how
they did it.
Anyway, what I am trying to do so that we don't have to make two runs on
each tape (each tape takes 2 hours to dump) is to re-map the C: drive to a
directory so that we can overcome the 512 entry limit.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
30 Mar
30 Mar
3:46 p.m.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf at siconic.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
Hmm, cool.
I'm not using floppies at all. This is with hard disks.
Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to fake out the C: drive to some
higher-level folder, i.e. make your D:\scratch folder into the C: drive?
Directories don't have the filesystem limits that the root directory of
C: does.
This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by subst
?)
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
It's definitely 512 on DOS 3.3.
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root
directory. I
have a need to put more than this.
I seem to remember that the limit is actually 224. Another
question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently
substitute the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed
this, although I might be confusing that with the ability of
LANtastic to redirect the C: drive to a network drive.
Checking 6.22 right here... works fine (I did "subst d: c:\"). So
yes, you can. At any
rate, what I'm trying to do is overcome the limit of 512
file entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
SUBST won't help you do this unless you don't use a floppy at all,
like:
subst a: c:\temp
...which works fine. My question is: Why?
I'm restoring files from VHS backup tapes. The files were all
originally stored and backed up from the root directory. On the tapes
I used to test my process, none had more than 512 files archived. The
backup software only restores *to the same exact drive and path* that
the files were archived from (in this case C:\). I'm running into
some tapes that have more than 512 files backed up frm the root
directory. These were done back in the 1980s. I can't figure out how
they did it, but there they are.
3:56 p.m.
At 05:46 PM 3/30/2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to fake out
the C: drive to some
higher-level folder, i.e. make your D:\scratch folder into the C: drive?
Directories don't have the filesystem limits that the root directory of
C: does.
This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by subst?)
We seem to be going around in circles on this one.
I'll also wonder if it fails because there's no COMMAND.COM (or other
system files) to reload on the suggested SUBST folder, and that it
might succeed if it's there.
Another trick might be to set up networking and share the C: root,
and remove files dynamically as they show up during the restore process.
- John
31 Mar
31 Mar
8:01 a.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
1. If you had one of the multi-user dos clones, you could then
move the files out of the root directory while it was loading
new ones in. You'd have to be careful not to move one that was
being created.
Maybe you could write a TSR that would do that for you
under normal DOS.
2. Does FreeDOS (http://freedos.org) have something that
would help? Maybe a different file system.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf at siconic.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Jim Leonard wrote:
>
>
I'm
restoring files from VHS backup tapes. The files were all
originally stored and backed up from the root directory. On the tapes
I used to test my process, none had more than 512 files archived. The
backup software only restores *to the same exact drive and path* that
the files were archived from (in this case C:\). I'm running into
some tapes that have more than 512 files backed up frm the root
directory. These were done back in the 1980s. I can't figure out how
they did it, but there they are.
Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to fake out the C: drive to some
higher-level folder, i.e. make your D:\scratch folder into the C: drive?
Directories don't have the filesystem limits that the root directory of
C: does.
This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by subst
?)
2 Apr
2 Apr
11:56 a.m.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to fake out
the C: drive to some
higher-level folder, i.e. make your D:\scratch folder into the C: drive?
Directories don't have the filesystem limits that the root directory of
C: does.
This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by subst
?)
DOS 3.3 doesn't allow this, otherwise the solution would've been simple ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
4 Apr
4 Apr
5:47 a.m.
At 20:56 02/04/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
Is this a restriction on being unable to map "c:", or being unable to map
out the boot drive (in which case the solution is simple - boot off
something else, e.g. "a:")
I have seen boot procedures in later versions of DOS swap around drive
letters after boot (usually diagnostic boot discs that set up a ram disc as
C:, and have the original drive somewhere else). Is there a mechanism in
3.30 to do something similar?
Rob
Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to
fake out the C: drive to some
higher-level folder, i.e. make your D:\scratch folder into the C: drive?
Directories don't have the filesystem limits that the root directory of
C: does.
This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by subst
?)
DOS 3.3 doesn't allow this, otherwise the solution would've been simple ;) 
5 Apr
5 Apr
1:47 p.m.
Rob O'Donnell wrote:
I have seen boot procedures in later versions of DOS swap around drive
letters after boot (usually diagnostic boot discs that set up a ram
disc as C:, and have the original drive somewhere else). Is there a
mechanism in 3.30 to do something similar?
Speaking of boot procedures, could the original post with the 512+ files
in the root directory
be because of a semi-custiom version of dos to handle big hard drives
over the 32meg dos
limit at the time. With the sector size increased dos would have
directory room for more and
bigger files.
Ben.
8 Apr
8 Apr
12:44 a.m.
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Obscure DOS question
At 20:56 02/04/2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Scott Stevens wrote:
>
> > Couldn't you use the DOS subst command to fake out the C: drive to
some
> > higher-level folder, i.e. make your
D:\scratch folder into the C:
drive?
> > Directories don't have the filesystem
limits that the root directory
of
> > C: does.
> >
> > This of course, would 'map over' your C: drive (is that allowed by
subst
> > ?)
>
>DOS 3.3 doesn't allow this, otherwise the solution would've been simple
;)
Is this a restriction on being unable to map "c:", or being unable to map
out the boot drive (in which case the solution is simple - boot off
something else, e.g. "a:")
I have seen boot procedures in later versions of DOS swap around drive
letters after boot (usually diagnostic boot discs that set up a ram disc
as
C:, and have the original drive somewhere else). Is
there a mechanism in
3.30 to do something similar?
Rob
Rob,
Unfortunately DOS 3.3 has no such provisions.
Regards, Steven C.
28 Mar
28 Mar
8:05 p.m.
See below. John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
To: "Classic Computers Mailing List" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:48 PM
Subject: Obscure DOS question
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Was there ever a way to put more than 512 files in the root directory?
Some sort of patch or utility?
Use subdirectories. No way in DOS to get around the root limit.
There are no limits, except the available disk space, on the number of files
and subdirectories in any other directory.
Did previous or subsequent versions of MS-DOS allow
more entries in the
root?
Another question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
Subst was used to make your "B" drive look like the "A" drive
to the
computer. "SUBST A:B:\"
At any rate, what I'm trying to do is overcome the
limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this?
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
8:56 p.m.
I wasn't reading the previous posts, but this caught my eye. Tell me
why you can't alter the disk parameter block to support more? Up to
65535, by my reckoning. <URL:
http://www.exegesis.uklinux.net/gandalf/encrypt/disk.htm#7.3.3 >,
specifically, offset 11h. Other than possibly DOS 3.3 not having the
same layout.
--jc
Keys wrote:
See below. John
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vintage Computer Festival"
<vcf at siconic.com>
To: "Classic Computers Mailing List" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:48 PM
Subject: Obscure DOS question
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
Was there ever a way to put more than 512 files in the root directory?
Some sort of patch or utility?
Use subdirectories. No way in DOS to get around the root limit.
There are no limits, except the available disk space, on the number of
files and subdirectories in any other directory.
Did previous or subsequent versions of MS-DOS
allow more entries in the
root?
Another question:
When using the SUBST command in MS-DOS, you cannot aparently substitute
the C: drive. I seem to recall that MS-DOS 6.0 allowed this, although I
might be confusing that with the ability of LANtastic to redirect the C:
drive to a network drive.
Subst was used to make your "B" drive look like the "A" drive
to the
computer. "SUBST A:B:\"
At any rate, what I'm trying to do is
overcome the limit of 512 file
entries in an MS-DOS 3.3 root directory.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this?
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
29 Mar
29 Mar
6:32 a.m.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:48:14 -0800 (PST), Vintage Computer Festival
<vcf at siconic.com> wrote:
MS-DOS 3.3 has a limit of 512 entries in the root directory. I have a
need to put more than this.
It's not an MS-DOS limit, it's a FAT16 limit. Applies to all OSs using
FAT16. FAT32 supports unlimited entries in the root dir. You could use
MS-DOS 7.1, extracted from Win95OSR2 or later, or a recent version of
DR-DOS or maybe even FreeDOS.
--
Liam Proven
Home: http://welcome.to/liamsweb * Blog: http://lproven.livejournal.com
AOL, Yahoo UK: liamproven * ICQ: 73187508 * MSN: lproven at hotmail.com
12:38 p.m.
Liam wrote:
> It's not an MS-DOS limit, it's a FAT16 limit.
I wrote:
No, it isn't. FAT16 doesn't care, as I've
demonstrated.
Correction. I previously demonstrated that FAT12 doesn't care.
I've now done a second experiment and determined that FAT16 also
can have well over 512 root directory entries.
It's all a matter of getting the file system formatted that
way, which the usual MS-DOS format command won't.
Eric
7198
days inactive
7209
days old
35 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cannings＠earthlink.net -
cctalk＠randy482.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
classiccmp.org＠irrelevant.fsnet.co.uk -
dhbarr＠gmail.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
h.wolter＠sympatico.ca -
javickers＠solutionengineers.com -
jcwren＠jcwren.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jrkeys＠concentric.net -
kth＠srv.net -
lproven＠gmail.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
tpeters＠mixcom.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
vcf＠siconic.com -
waisun.chia＠gmail.com