The data integrety bit is sort of an optional i.e. not automatic thingy. An application must explicity use the transaction log as the NT family does for system files. User data files usually are not
I have been following the NTFS post with interest since I have been trying to build a logging computer system that maintains compatibility with the old DOS world as well as with the new stuff. I want
That is a viable option IFF you have not already a system with hundreds of applications that were installed with Program Files on the C: drive. If you already have a system like that which most proba
The other option is to install a second hard drive and format it as FAT. NTFS has security, FAT does not. The security forces you to use the operating system's log in security to gain access to anyth
BUT, remember that if you do not want to go through hiding one drive that the boot partition must be on the first drive so that means that it cannot be NTFS or you must put a small FAT boot partition
[snip] Indeed early recommendations from Microsoft for installing Windows NT based systems (which the Windows 2000 and Windows XP operating systems are based on) was to create a small, FAT based boo
Regarding Steve KB3MM's comments: Indeed the actual I/O of the application program (like WriteLog) is NOT protected by the NTFS journal ... only the disk's file system is (as you pointed out). Still
_________________________________________________________ And most if not all of the DOS programs will run under Windows anyway. I run RiTTY by K6STI - probably one of the most demanding of all DOS p
Bob-- I have thought about drive cages in the past--but not really considered them all that much for this system. But I like the idea. This computer is a rack mount cabinet with enough drive bays to
If you can find the enclosures at a reasonable price I think that is a VERY good idea. I agree that interactions with the dual boot setup described are numerous and can be fatal to the system.
Too right. Multi-kilobuck rigs, cutting edge station designs.... plugged into 1980 DOS? Operating radios is alot more fun to me than racking my brain trying to remember obscure archaic commands for
Thought about raid! But what I am doing and didn't mention is building two identical systems that will be networked together with the second system logging in parallel. Sort of a hot standby! Guess
However, if you run GOBACK, then the application changes are protected , at least most of them and much more so than the NTFS which does nothing with them. If you have the full version you can go ba
Yeah? Let's see you manipluate a file set as hidden and system in Windows? And no, I have an ancient Norton utility which no O/S other than DOS can duplicate. And it DOES show ALL files, and can edit
I'm not sure what "manipulation" is needed, but the ability to show a hidden or system file in Windows is trivial, if obscure. In Windows XP: START...Control Panel...Appearance...Folder Options...Vi
I'm not really sure what this is or why this exercise is required in the course of writelog use. I am sure that only a few clicks of the mouse and a punch of F1 could get me there if I needed. Blake
Try ZTree, a marvelous port of the old DOS XTree Gold to 32-bit systems. I've used it with Win98, WINNT 4.0, and WIN2K with absolutely no problems. If you're really brave you can even edit files at