From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Mon Apr 26 14:53:04 2010 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:49:18 +0300 From: George Nakos X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <279393910.20100426214918@hol.gr> To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] Kobold replacement for MiNT In-Reply-To: <201004262144.45253.oak@helsinkinet.fi> References: <00033729.018392621c69@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <1673723074.20100426121315@hol.gr> <201004262144.45253.oak@helsinkinet.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/10739/Wed Apr 14 06:54:30 2010 on takeit01.mail.dc.hol.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: ggn@hol.gr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id o3QIr3e7017578 Hello Eero, Monday, April 26, 2010, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: > 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... If you read my answer carefully, I don't mention about the age of the drive. -- Best regards, George mailto:ggn@hol.gr