X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: "Wojciech Galazka" <wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: LFN on pure DOS
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 23:27:59 +0200
Organization: NASK - www.nask.pl
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <aapis2$lh$2@pippin.warman.nask.pl>
References: <c21a43ff DOT 0204241352 DOT 74858db3 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <001601c1ec6e$46ed5080$7164a8c0 AT tpc2>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wawhsa-218.dial.plusgsm.pl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: pippin.warman.nask.pl 1020284613 689 212.2.98.218 (1 May 2002 20:23:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT nask DOT pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 20:23:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g41KU4H27413
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


Hugo Simon wrote in <001601c1ec6e$46ed5080$7164a8c0 AT tpc2>...
>I used two such TSR in my MP3 player project. The first is the one you
>mentioned and the second is by an german author and is called DOSLFN :)
>The first one is extremely slow and misshandles special characters. The
>second is much faster and I don't see any characterproblems until now. It
>has also CDROM support but I never tested it.
>

I completely agree that DOSLFN handles LFN far better and is faster than LFNDOS.
I did some tests a while ago and there are problems with DOSLFN that make it
impossible to rebuild larger packages (I tested fileutils)