Supported File Systems

Please ask questions here if you are not familiar with fsarchiver
freddy77
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Supported File Systems

Post by freddy77 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:29 pm

It's true booting from FAT is not that easy (different files to boot, fat12/fat16/fat32 each requiring a different procedure and even some type of boot require a file to be placed at specific positions) but why do not support fat stating that fsarchiver is not able to make a bootable fat ??
fat have only few additional attributes (long and short name and some attribute bit like hidden or system one) so I don't think it would take longer to add support to it. Another option would be to support only fat32 which is easier to support (just copy boot sectors and patch first one).

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:12 pm

Re: Supported File Systems

Post by admin » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:15 pm

I think most people who don't have Windows 9x today are using or should use ntfs. If we provide that feature, many users will come back and say: "this tool has destroyed my Windows 98 partition"

freddy77
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:20 pm

Re: Supported File Systems

Post by freddy77 » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:52 am

Do you think that if I can manage to get all these systems to backup and restore successfully would be ok?
- winxp fat32/16 -> fat32/16 even with different offset/HS
- win98 fat32/16 -> fat32/16 even with different offset/HS
- dos7 fat32/16 -> fat32/16 even with different offset/HS
- dos6 fat16 -> fat16 even with different offset/HS
- freedos fat32/16 -> fat32/16 even with different offset/HS
- dos fat12 -> fat12 with different HS (floppies)
I would add some ibm-dos/dr-dos but I don't own any of them :(
tar should works to backup/restore files, I'd add VBR handlign with some code.
The idea is to save/restore+patch VBR instead of creating with mkdosfs (I agree this would require a lot of options to mkfsdos!).

Post Reply