Hi!
13-Сен-2004 19:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> This warning may be only because authors of tose spec may know about
>> existance of buggy BIOSes.
LG> No, they state several times that ONLY 0 AND 80 may be boot drives.
Ok. What about boot managers?
>> No, not better. For example: if you use boot manager, which supports
LG> For this, an option of SYS will revert back to DL = boot drive
Hm. Your arguments sounds reasonable. But I continue to _feel_, that
using BIOS info instead fixed value is better (except buggy BIOSes, which
pass wrong drive#).
>> Hm. Or you mean, that _some_ (non-FD!) SYS, which writes own boot
>> sector, by some strange/buggy reason will preserve FD's boot record
>> _field_ "drive number" (offset 0x24) and then its boot code will reuse
>> this field?
LG> Yes.
>> How this alien buggy SYS relates to our boot code and dependence from
>> BIOS info?
LG> I already explained. If it overwrites our boot sector, it won't boot.
You _suggest_, that _some_ SYS (may) remain untouched 24h field when it
overwrite boot sector _and_ its boot code reuse this value? Or you know such
_known and usable_ SYS with such (strange!) behavior? If first, then we
shouldn't worry about this; if second, then, probably, we should force
bugfixing of those SYS.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
_______________________________________________
Freedos-kernel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
