Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 11:08:36 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
cc: Brennan Bas Underwood <brennan AT mack DOT rt66 DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Exclusive access to drive
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970602031133.15240T-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970602110226.26674B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:

> > I suspect that, as usual, Microsoft tries to save me from myself a bit too
> > well, because the same considerations apply when I run CHKDSK from DOS
> > 6.x.  However, the version from 6.x doesn't say a word to that effect, and
> > nothing bad really happens to my drive after running CHKDSK. 
> 
> Yes, but DOS 6.x is not a multitasking operating system with 50
> different programs simultaneously accessing the hard disk, and
> having open files, write caching, etc... either.  Window's '95
> *IS*.

Then how would you explain the amazing fact that CHKDSK from Windows 95
runs without any complaint from the DOS box under Windows, and only
refuses to run from within a DJGPP program?  (It probably won't run from
non-DJGPP programs also, but I didn't check.) Isn't Windows multi-tasking
when you run it from DOS box?  Sure it is.  Isn't DOS box and COMMAND.COM 
just another program that runs under Windows?  Sure they are.  Then why 
won't Microsoft let me do what they apparently do themselves without any 
hesitation?