🚀 go-pugleaf

Hari Kumar wrote:
> 
> In article <5smgmd$h2m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
>         clif@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (Cliff) writes:
> > hltang (hltang@hknet.com) wrote:
> >> Since you are using the OSR2, the Norton Utility is no longer valid. It
> >> supports FAT 16 while the OSR2 runs FAT32.
> >
> > Win95 OSR2 can run FAT32, but it can also run using standard FAT16.
> >
> > But either way you are correct, you shouldn't run the Norton utilities on
> > Win95 OSR2.
> >
> NU 2.0 runs fine for me on OSR2/FAT32!
> --
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                      ////
>                                                     -O+Q-
>   Department  MTM                      +---------oOO-(_)-OOo--------------+
>   (Metallurgy & Materials Engg.)       |   Hari.Kumar@mtm.kuleuven.ac.be  |
>   W. De Croylaan 2                     |   hk%fys%mtm@cc3.kuleuven.ac.be  |
>   B-3001 Heverlee (Leuven)             |   Tel : +32 16 321318            |
>   Belgium                              |   Fax : +32 16 321991            |
>   -------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
>                    http://www.sunmtm.kuleuven.ac.be/
NU version 1 only supported fat16.
With the release of 95 B which supported fat32 Norton released version 2
to support it.
You will only be running the fat32 if you used a 95 boot disk to
partition your hard drive and chose YES when it asked you if you wanted
to use it.
The easiest way to see if you have fat 16 or fat 32 is to run CHKDSK
from a dos prompt on the drive. If it says that it can not be run(it
will give you some info on the drive, but won't be able to check it)
then you have fat 32, which chkdsk is not designed to examine. The stack
size is largely left up to windows to decide. It is not usually a size
problem but a glich in the system. If you really wanted to you could
start hunting down the windows registry for info but, while you may
find  and be able to change info such as the amount of mem given to
programs, you should find that the default values are sufficient.
The fat theory only holds with Norton Protected. There is no reason that
a screensaver should have any problem with the file system. Nobody
writes screensavers that write directly to disk as it is not necessary
and rather silly.