Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: ArarghMail803NOSPAM <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:31:05 -0500
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"ArarghMail803NOSPAM" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageWell, based on this table that I found somewhere, (long line wrapping
news:04auu3t4tqpd76bk9bh5807j1lvt4ssddj@xxxxxxxxxx
when I said "Correct", not about which kind of LBA support was in what
version. :-)
I didn't use Win95 much either. I'm still having a problem determining
specifically which Win95 version added LBA for FAT32. Most sources say
Win95b (since FDISK added support for partition type 0x0C), but some say
Win95c... I haven't been able to find a (reputable) source with version
numbers (e.g., 4.00.1111 or 4.03.1214, etc) that indicates which was the
first with LBA support for FAT32. Still working on tracking it down...
from Agent), I would guess ---
OS RELEASE VERSION MS-DOS REVISION TIME +
DATE BUILD
Win 95 final retail 4.00.0950 7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
09:50:00 4.00.0950
Win 95 final OEM 4.00.0950 7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
09:50:00 4.00.0950
Win 95a OSR1 final Updt 4.00.0950 a 7.00 [4.00.0950] 02-02-96 +
09:51:00 4.00.0951
--- THIS one:
Win 95B OSR 2.0 fnl OEM 4.00.0950 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 08-24-96 +
11:11:11 4.00.1111
Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnlUpdt 4.00.0950 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 04-10-97 +
12:14:00 4.03.1212
Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnl OEM 4.01.0971 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 06-25-97 +
09:07:10 4.01.0971
Win 95C OSR 2.5 fnl OEM 4.00.0950 C 7.10 [4.00.1111] 11-26-97 +
12:16:00 4.03.1214
but it is only a guess. :-)
Also, if you want the full list, email me, and I will send it. It
goes up thru ME.
--
ArarghMail803 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- References:
- int 0x13 utility
- From: Alex Buell
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: João Jerónimo
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: ArarghMail803NOSPAM
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: ArarghMail803NOSPAM
- Re: int 0x13 utility
- From: Rod Pemberton
- int 0x13 utility
- Prev by Date: Re: int 0x13 utility
- Next by Date: Re: int 0x13 utility
- Previous by thread: Re: int 0x13 utility
- Next by thread: Re: int 0x13 utility
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|