Subj : Re: [OT] Yet another Microsoft documentation inconsistency
To   : All
From : jj4public@vfemail.net
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:14 pm

Path:
eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!n
ews.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.msdos.batch.nt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsx
p.help_and_support
Subject: Re: [OT] Yet another Microsoft documentation inconsistency
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:27:46 +0700
Organization: ?
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <2mbl0mksq4id$.17gsy0z9rcgth$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1wfvvff87ktcc$.21sn6pqzqw5$.dlg@40tude.net>
<575d0ce3$0$5866$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net
wnr4m9on/uMIhAZdXql54qXeJaxNtmsROSTKtVX1FEGMW396U99TRioi1d+ZMw3ydUqTWemTJt0MmT8
s7ZxYL+TeudiF9USPRsXKCuUTstMnhVZkErXSuzk6cDdQm1bU
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:27:48 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net;
logging-data="wIPZPtwN7FU0/snpuX1e+JKEm6evPMyIH4We3a3gNNw0dYxiJIzZw8UHac+s6Ix/u
x+0sXwXyhT0mG1UpXkbx2LjujDXhVeINdanPsjRe0KHZq1oVvl6MP2AmWHV8Lhw";
mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Face: 
\*\`0(1j~VfYC>ebz[&O.]=,Nm\oRM{of,liRO#7Eqi4|!]!(Gs=Akgh{J)605>C9Air?pa
d{sSZ09u+A7f<^paR"/NH_#<mE1S"hde\c6PZLUB[t/s5-+Iu5DSc?P0+4%,Hl
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mK9ETPSK9e//I2+YBtNmUfRso/g=
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.msdos.batch.nt:15347
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:128369
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:31855

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:20:49 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
> Both can be considered to be true: The one one tells you the command exists
> and what the setting it gouverns its *ment* for, the other one tells you the
> setting is ignored. :-)

But the conflict remains. One states that it's ignored in Windows XP, while
the other one doesn't. The one that states it's ignored... makes it look
that the command may actually exist on Windows 2000/NT4, kaput on Windows
XP, then magically pop ups back in Vista and later.

> There remains a question though: does the OS now never, or always check if a
> write-action has succeeded (rather important when writing to a medium like a
> floppy).

On WinNT, written data aren't verified. All disk write failures are hardware
failures. I've checked all disk related device drivers and there's no
reference to string "verify" except 3 kernel I/O functions which aren't
related to disk-write verify. The File API doesn't seem to provide any
support for it too - *including* transaction-enabled file operations
(ouch!).

Hopefully, nowadays storage ECCs are reliable enough.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
 * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx  //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)

.