From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Mon Apr 26 14:47:07 2010 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi From: Eero Tamminen Organization: Koti To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] Kobold replacement for MiNT Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:44:45 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <00033729.018392621c69@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <1673723074.20100426121315@hol.gr> In-Reply-To: <1673723074.20100426121315@hol.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201004262144.45253.oak@helsinkinet.fi> X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: oak@helsinkinet.fi Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Hi, On Monday 26 April 2010, George Nakos wrote: > While copying, Kobold has a much more efficient way of reading/writing > the files, but there is a danger as I wrote in my first reply. In the > superfast mode, it reads and writes to the FAT directly. Which is fine > for floppies and old hard drivers, but I dunno what will happen in a big > modern partition. It's not about age of hard disk but about Kobold doing things behind the OS's back. If OS (say HD driver) implements caching for the file system accesses/changes and program does direct access, guess how consistent your FAT will be... - Eero