Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 1
    Even in the DOS days, it was a really bad idea. If a file had been updated but the FAT had not been updated, then you'd get a corrupted file. Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 1:55
  • 1
    @DewiMorgan: In the DOS days there were utilities available for write-back caching, but every standalone version of DOS I can remember used write-through caching as its normal behavior. What would one do otherwise to notify the system one wanted to shut down?
    – supercat
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 2:13
  • 3
    @DewiMorgan: I know some old hard drives had head-park utilities, but those were pretty much obsolete well before Windows 95 replaced DOS.
    – supercat
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 2:41
  • 1
    supercat: Nah, MS-DOS didn't do such caching unless you ran software to do that, such as the bundled SmartDrv. How you would notify that the system was to shut down is to use SmartDrv/C. (I believe the default behavior, regarding write caching, was different between MS-DOS 5.0 and 6.22... I don't offhand remember if it was the 5.0->6.0 upgrade or a later upgrade that made the change). If memory serves me right, one of the later upgrades (starting from 6 or later) caused SmartDrv to automatically do that before letting Command.Com show the prompt again, so safe to power off when at prompt
    – TOOGAM
    Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 4:43
  • 1
    @Supercat As I understand it, write-through caching protects a single block of data from corruption during a write. It does not protect two different blocks (FAT and file contents) from falling out of synch if the power is cut between writing one and the other. Commented Mar 10, 2016 at 5:31