From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Jul 10 11:52:51 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA18302
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:52:51 -0700
Received: from gateway.uwohali.com (gateway.uwohali.com [198.79.105.253])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA18296
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:52:49 -0700
Received: from Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com (uwohali1.uwohali.com [198.79.105.1]) by gateway.uwohali.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA21380; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:55:54 -0500
Received: from UWOHALI1/MAILQ by Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com (Mercury 1.13);
    Mon, 10 Jul 95 13:52:45 -0600
Received: from MAILQ by UWOHALI1 (Mercury 1.13); Mon, 10 Jul 95 13:52:36 -0600
From: "Walter Huff" <WHUFF@uwohali.com>
Organization:  Uwohali, Incorporated
To: amondale@nsta.org, questions@freebsd.org
Date:          Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:52:29 CST
Subject:       Re: attack of the FAT
Reply-to: whuff@uwohali.com
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-ID: <3A381880637@Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com>
Sender: questions-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I have tried in vain to get 2.0.5 release to live peacefully with 
> Windows NT Workstation 3.5. They both have different views of the 
> universe, particularly each others' FAT table.

Not at all sure about this but does NT 3.5 use the Extended FAT 
system like Windows 95?  If so it may (and probably does) have to do 
with the way W95 creates long filenames.  It uses multiple FAT 
entries to hold the extended file name, with the extras containing 
some "impossible" set of attribute flags set.  If 2.0.5 doesn't know 
about these special entries then it'd complain about the drive.  If 
3.5 doesn't see these special entries then it'd complain also.

Just an educated guess...

- Walter