Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:16:59 -0000 From: "Nick Schiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum?
Philip Thanks (and for the typo correction) Nick Schiller -----Original Message----- From: Philip Nienhuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2005 23:14 To: Libretto Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:13:19 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? Nick Schiller wrote: > > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:25:54 -0000 > From: "Nick Schiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? > > Matt/John > > I have read this exchange with interest - but some bewilderment > > I am a reasonably capable PC user but by no means an IT Engineer. I simply > want to run a big disc in my little libretto. From what I can understand > there is no issue with putting a nice big disc in under either W2K or XP. > However, the hibernation does seem to be an issue. > > I can understand the logic of what is being described but have no real > understanding of how to implement it on a disc - could either of you provide > an idiots guide to setting up a new disc in a Libretto CT110, 64Mb, 266Mhz - 233 Mhz :-) > it would be very much appreciated!!!! Search the archives, http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ or peek at my Windows page, http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Windows.html (be careful with numbers, I should update the page soon) Philip > Nick Schiller > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Nienhuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 January 2005 19:00 > To: Libretto > Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? > > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:59:18 +0100 > From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? > > John Musielewicz wrote: > > > > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:09:16 -0800 (PST) > > From: John Musielewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? > > > > hi matt > > > > umm matt the bios sees a drive over 8Gig as a 8 gig > > drive so it'll write on the end of the drive. it sees > > the whole drive like this > > > > |-----------------bios=8GB---------------------------| > > |-------------Operating system=greater > > 8GB-----------| > > > > so figure looking at the drawing above the end or the > > drive is to the right the bios will write it at the > > end and the os will write it at the end if you set it > > up that way of course. now many people will say > > differant but I let you in on a little secret. I am > > Once I was thinking exactly these same thoughts, after I was informed by > Wilm Bockey that the BIOS hibernation stuff indeed uses the int13 > extensions - IOW the BIOS hibernation routines would have no problem at > all writing the memory image to the real end of the disk. > > But then .... > > (1) a number of people who ignored the location of the hibernation area > around the 8 GB barrier have reported serious data loss; > > (2) a number of people simply tested where the BIOS dumps the memory > image using files with special patterns and found it to be around 8 GB; > > (until further info comes along I perceive these as simple facts) > > and some further thinking yielded: > > (3) There is no specially designated hibernation area mentioned in the > MBR or EMBR. Without it, how would BIOS hibernation be able to deduce > where the end of the disk is...? The only available alternative outside > the OS is to use the crippled disk size reporting function of the BIOS > itself. And that can only see max. 8 GB... > You can check that yourself using a simple DOS assembly prog to involve > int13 subfunc 48h; it reports disk size by CHS parameters (implying 1024 > cyl limit) rather than number of sectors (cf. to LBA). > > > kind of a computer god if I can stay awake long enough > > Yes your USB info a while ago was indeed divine :-) > > > to let the others finish telling me why it WON't work > > and then me doing it the way I said just to go home > > and get away from the m***ns. Now you can use a drive > > overlay if you want and it'll change things kinda but > > not really for a couple reasons..1 the drive overlay > > will force you to write he hibernation partition at > > the 8GB barrier (which is no barrier for the OS or > > bios by the way that is just hype) because the bios > > will use the overlay. but why would you want to use an > > ?? > I always thought an overlay replaces the hard disk > routines of the BIOS (it catches int14/15 IRQs) > > > overlay to begin with? you have to sit there and count > > silly things like sectors and cylinders and other odd > > things that are only fun if your explaining them to a > > cute girl:) and want to impress her with what a brain > > you have. The easy thing is really to do what you > : > ...<lot of interesting stuff snipped...> > > P.
