Hi Gerry,
> it says FDISK 1.2.1, and if I go to freedos.org and click
> "software|base|fdisk" it says 1.2.1 as well, so why does mine say 1.3.0?
The 1.3.0-beta version is popular as it is used on UltimateBootCD.
It has debug features activated and it has a small fix in LBA BIOS
detection, not m
>any valid MBR starts with AA55, so if no AA55, FDISK /MBR might be done
>automatically. Am I correct, Eric?
Heck, no! Not at all!
It ends with 55 aa, and even then, you know nothing about whether
it contains a WORKING boot program. The MBR contains TWO things:
The boot program and the partition
Hi...
> replace on disk error is dangerous, replace-on-missing AA55 is something
> FDISK can ask the user in interactive mode, or batchfile can do FDISK /MBR.
I wanted to make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that nothing must ever automatically
do FDISK /MBR with as only exception a CUSTOM install disk for un
Hi again (wow, what a lot of traffic today, sigh...),
> > I wanted to make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that nothing must ever automatically
> > do FDISK /MBR with as only exception a CUSTOM install disk for unattended
> > install on known-empty / known-not-to-have-any-useful-MBR-program systems.
> too bad,
Eric Auer schreef:
It ends with 55 aa, and even then, you know nothing about whether
it contains a WORKING boot program. The MBR contains TWO things:
The boot program and the partition data. FDISK had the VERY stupid
function to delete BOTH and replace them with a fresh copy if the
55 aa was miss
Eric Auer schreef:
I wanted to make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that nothing must ever automatically
do FDISK /MBR with as only exception a CUSTOM install disk for unattended
install on known-empty / known-not-to-have-any-useful-MBR-program systems.
too bad, people want to have a working system being set
Hi All,
Thanks for the excellent help with my questions. I'd just like to
clarify things:
I'm not saying that FDISK _should_ create anything automatically, I was
just surprised that it didn't. The other thread implied that running
FDISK without a valid MBR would cause creation of one, but Er
Hi Bernd,
too bad, people want to have a working system being set up for them.
if MS FDISK does alter MBR, then our FDISK should do so also.
To be fair, FreeDOS gives options to write MBRs. The only reason I
didn't choose this option in my experiments today was because I was
testing for the
Hi,
No idea whether MS FDISK zaps the MBR from time to time, but it better not.
I learned a couple of things about FreeDOS FDISK today:
1. You can issue FDISK /CLEARALL and it clears everything! This is
excellent, and much faster than MS-DOS with all it's silly warnings. It
even clears the
Hi,
Gerry Hickman escribió:
What is the correct procedure for getting a "working boot
program" into the "valid Master Boot Record", and who supplies this
program? Is it Microsoft, Intel??
Hard drives usually have a default MBR, just as pre-formatted floppies
have default FAT the information
Aitor Santamaria wrote:
>One book I read (I think "Dissecting DOS") was considering the MBR as
>part of the OS itself.
I think "Dissecting DOS" it is not. It explains the MBR but says it is
something independent form the O/S.
JAS
---
S
11 matches
Mail list logo
