Re: Intro and it seems that W3.1 can see beyond the partitionbarriers!
Hi Vitux,
Perhaps I didn't sent that letter. Debian enormous amount of messages
dizzies me!
Sorry and thank you, man.
Ignasi
----------------------------------------------------
Transciption follows:
>Sounds very strange to me, I would suppose Win3.1 (which is
>actually DOS) to see only the size of the partition it lives
>in.
Me, too.
>How did you partition your drive?
Before going to sleep I remembered I used the fdisk from Hamm:
I ran fdisk and I did the following:
At first there was a large FAT16 partition.
I applied the following changes:
delete the FAT16 partition.
Then add the following partitions:
dev/hda1: DOS-16 bit >=32M of 100 Mb
dev/hda2: Extended (marked as bootable)
dev/hda5: a 950 Mb partition for Linux native. (XXXX)
dev/hda6: a 50 Mb partition for swap.
Then I wrote the changes.
From the DOS fdisk I see now:
Primary partition: 100 Mb
Extended partition: 1Gb with logical partitions. Would you like to see the
info on logical partitions? (Y)
No logical partitions defined. Total size of extended DOS partition: 1051 Mb
Another curious experience w/ DOS I forgot to mention.
As I had built the computer from scratch (a 486 that nobody wanted -it
seems that here people here are very rich-) I added a 1Gb HDD. But when I
added the HDD, when running the DOS boot diskette it started to appear some
odd characters in the screen (this did not happen when I booted the Linux
kernel).
An I/O conflict? I tried to solve it changing jumpers from the Oak 087
video card using all combinations (no manual for it, Oak does not give it)
but no change. Changing cards from its slots, but no solution.
As last I apply a plug&play DOS device from Intel and it detects my sound
card. The errors disappear. Explanation? No idea.
No virus sure (cold boot, very new boot diskettes from two brands).
Norton DD told me the HDD was full of damaged clusters, but I stopped it
and I applied Ontrack support for large drives to the DOS boot diskette.
Then there were no errors.
>What version of DOS are you running?
DOS 6.22
>(btw, win3.1 seems to me to be the most stable windows version
>at this point, but then again, it's based on DOS ;-)
Oh yeah man. If they have been so decent like in that times, I'm sure they
would not get so much problems as they have now.
It seems, writing this, that it's something I did uncorrectly, but I don't
know what it should be.
>Also: beats me why you would want to run hamm -its old, not
>being developed, and there are really great advantages in
>running the newer kernels (fs-corruption-bugs are fixed, much
>better hardware-support, etc).
>Recently upgraded slink->potato myself, things are running
>smooth here.
Mmmm... I was too impatient. In the Pentium III I'll install Potato when I
have a copy. Perhaps there is another reason: that in Windows world I have
the tendency of being technological reactionary: prefer NT 4.0 than W2000,
prefer W95C than 98 SameExcrement, prefer WP7 (actually the best is WP 5.1
for DOS) than WP8... I forgot that it's also useful to get the latest
versions of DOS/W nice programs, such as ARJ, IrfanView...
Thanks for your interest, Vitux.
Ignasi
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr
Reply to: