RE: VFAT.XFS versus MagiC

[Jo Even Skarstein <Jo.Even.Skarstein@ifi.ntnu.no>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Sven Karlsson wrote:

> > Adding VFAT-compatibility to the TOS fs should be quite easy, VFAT is
> > identical to FAT except for the extra entries in the FAT-table (For
> > the long filenames).
> 
> Actually the difference is that the directory info is changed by adding
> "illegal" directory entries with the extended (long) filename encoded
> in Unicode. You have to be careful when decoding the directory info
> since TOS/DOS might have destroyed the extra directory entries mistaking
> them for free/illegal entries... This means that you have to read and

...and Win95 doesn't seem to care at all about this, as VFAT-floppies
that are written to by either TOS or DOS often are rejected. And why,
WHY must Win95 always add VFAT-entries even if the floppy is formatted
as a standard DOS-disk? Doesn't it know the difference between FAT and
VFAT? It drives me mad sometimes as I often has to exchange data on
floppies between Win95-boxes and my Falcon.

> interpret the directory entries yourself (by raw sector reads) but you
> can load (and append write into etc) files with long file names with normal
> TOS calls since all such files also have a unique DOS/TOS name. However
> VFAT can be used onto of FAT32 which cannot be read by TOS and in that
> case you will have to do your own filehandling routines yourself too..

Isn't this what a XFS normally do? ;-)


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein    http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**    beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/