Subj : Re: [OT] Yet another Microsoft documentation inconsistency
To   : All
From : address@not.available
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:14 pm

Path:
eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!b
order1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.ne
ws.xs4all.nl!nzpost1.xs4all.net!not-for-mail
From: "R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
Newsgroups:
alt.msdos.batch.nt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsx
p.help_and_support
References: <1wfvvff87ktcc$.21sn6pqzqw5$.dlg@40tude.net>
<575d0ce3$0$5866$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
<2mbl0mksq4id$.17gsy0z9rcgth$.dlg@40tude.net>
Subject: Re: [OT] Yet another Microsoft documentation inconsistency
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:02:36 +0200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <575d4ef8$0$5955$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.163.119.5
X-Trace: 1465732856 news.xs4all.nl 5955 83.163.119.5:1228
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.msdos.batch.nt:15348
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:128371
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:31856

JJ,

> One states that it's ignored in Windows XP, while the other
> one doesn't.

The latter one is what I ment by my "lying by ommision" remark: It makes you
*assume* that the setting it gouverns has an(y) effect, while it actually
doesn't.

> 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.

Pretty much, yes.

.... though more "is ignored on OS ***" webpages might be floating around
there ...

(personally I get the feeling the setting is ignored on all of them)

> On WinNT, written data aren't verified. All disk write failures are
> hardware failures.
.....
> Hopefully, nowadays storage ECCs are reliable enough.

I can imagine that for the harddrives (which nowerdays are rather smart and
have error checking, repairing and bad-sector management build in), but for
(something like) a floppy ?  Not so much ...  And those floppies where, when
XP was young, still in use.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
2mbl0mksq4id$.17gsy0z9rcgth$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 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)

.