Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:53:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: amengual@sadeya.cesca.es (Carlos Amengual) Cc: terry@lambert.org, a.mondini@agora.stm.it, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBsd 2.0.5 installation with Windows 95 Message-ID: <199511012253.PAA00649@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951101214620.16458A-100000@blanco.sadeya.cesca.es> from "Carlos Amengual" at Nov 1, 95 09:58:32 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Installing FreeBSD onto an empty partition of a drive containing a > > Win95 partition as well works fine. Windows95 does not use a different > > partition ID from DOS, and so it is as safe as installing FreeBSD > > in the same situation with a DOS instead of a Win95 partition. > > Independently of this problem with the boot manager, do Win95 partitions > allow to be mounted as dos filesystems under FreeBSD ? It looks like > not, as its FAT is the new VFAT, and knowing it for sure would help me > to decide whether to install it on my home PC or not. They mount, but unlike other tools, the BSD msdosfs does not ignore entries with the system+hidden+volume_label bits set, which is the magic incantation. So you get some display garbage until you make a three line change in msdosfs. The non-garbage entries are perfectly usable. Unless you are planning on using VFAT as your default FS, this is "good enough that it isn't a decision breaker". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511012253.PAA00649>