----------
> Van: Dan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Aan: Diversia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Linux 8086 Mailinglist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Onderwerp: Re: NanoX version 0.3 released (Pretty much off-topic)
> Datum: donderdag 13 mei 1999 23:19
>
> > I (Erik Smit, AKA Diversia)'m new to this list.
> >
> > I don't think using a bios file would be very useable. AFAIK a BIOS is
> > system-specific and maybe in the time of CP/M al C128 where the same
but
> > that doesn't work today. I don't think it would be a pretty sight using
a
> > Amstrad 286 bios in a Commodore XT/86 Turbo.
> > I may be completely wrong about this but I don't think it's smart to is
a
> > bios file.
>
> I don't think you understand, the whole point of having a BIOS file is
> because different systems *aren't* the same, instead of having to
re-write
> or re-compile the OS for each system, a BIOS file is used instead which
> has the correct information for that given system. Like you said, all
> C128s were the same, so there was one BIOS for them, but they are
> different from the TRS-80 model IV, which has a different BIOS, which is
> different from a Kaypro, which has a different BIOS, etc. I suspect that
> with ELKs, a macine with a ROM BIOS could somehow have a file that made
> use of that BIOS instead of starting from scratch. I would also think
> that any machine that's hardware compatable with an IBM could more or
less
> use the same BIOS file, I believe the issue is simple what hardware
> addresses to use for different things, right?
>
> Dan
>
I think I DO understand. A BIOS is writting specificly for one and only one
chipset type.
So using a bios for a chipset XXX on a chipset YYY system would seriously
damage your whole system (if it would even boot(what it won't do)). And you
don't have to re-write/compile ELKs to run on different systems. My
bootfloppy works on my system (a commodore 286) and my friends a Tulip
XT-III.
Diversia (AKA Erik Smit)
