Ie., second disk was enumerated as 80h (and, for example, partitions from it was labeled earlier, than from first disk)?
Yes, exactly.
This warning may be only because authors of tose spec may know about existance of buggy BIOSes.
No, they state several times that ONLY 0 AND 80 may be boot drives.
No, not better. For example: if you use boot manager, which supports loading boot record from second disk, then (your) boot code will not work in such configurations, if it will contain 80h.
And vice versa: let suggest, that BIOS swaps disks numbers. In this cases you can't boot (your) boot record, if it will contain 81h.
For this, an option of SYS will revert back to DL = boot 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?
Yes.
How this alien buggy SYS relates to our boot code and dependence from BIOS info?
I already explained. If it overwrites our boot sector, it won't boot.
-------------------------------------------------------
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
