Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 12-Сен-2004 14:08 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> I don't understand this. SYS writes 0/FF only into its own images, >> builtin into SYS executables. And, if _after_ SYS someone will change >> boot loader, then 0/FF value also will be replaced. Where is trouble? LG> The trouble is that most SYSes don't bother to set this value - they just LG> copy the whole data area from the old boot sector and replace only the LG> code and OEM ID. So the FF remains there. Verified. _And_ their boot code reuse this field? If not, then this in unimportant, what those SYSes remain in 24h field. >> I think, current behavior (use fixed drive# in case of A:/C: and BIOS >> value in other cases, including HDs), is good and flexible way. LG> Currently, fixed drive number 0 is used for floppies, but for hard disks, LG> FF is used, which is troublesome if FreeDOS is replaced by another DOS LG> later. Well, right now I look at boot code of MS-SYS6, and found, that it not uses 24h offset itself, but pass value from there to kernel. I not check what SYS does with original 24h field, but image inside SYS contains 80h value, so I doubt that MS-SYS preserves this field. LG> Now Jeremy added an option to set the boot drive to an arbitrary LG> value, which solves the issue. But FF is still default for hard disks. --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 13-Сен-2004 12:48 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>> My AwardBIOS here for example does have such a feature. However, when I >>> look at the boot record of my second hard drive, I see again boot drive >>> = 80. >> Do you try to boot from second drive with this boot record (which >> contains 80h)? And it boots fine (without accessing first disk)? LG> Yes, of course. >>> So, BIOS probably swaps LG> Not probably - surely. Ie., second disk was enumerated as 80h (and, for example, partitions from it was labeled earlier, than from first disk)? >> "Probably"?! In this case it not need to pass to boot code information >> about boot drive! LG> The BIOS Boot specification LG> (http://www.phoenix.com/resources/specs-bbs101.pdf) warns that only 0 and LG> 80h can be safely considered as boot devices, albeit it recommends (but LG> doesn't require) that BIOS passes boot device in DL on Int 19h. The 0/80h LG> limitation "warn" != "limitation". This warning may be only because authors of tose spec may know about existance of buggy BIOSes. LG> is due to the MS-DOS boot sectors, of course. So, whatever we LG> decide, we should remove the FF kludge in any case. I already expressed my LG> opinion - I agree with Jeremy and Eric that choice (2) is better for LG> compatibility reasons. 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. >> "Will"? Do you mean, that currend FD boot record (with FFh mask) doesn't >> work when loading FD from second disk?! LG> It works until replaced by another boot sector that tries to boot off LG> drive FF. ?! Lucho, please, reread your sentence! We don't discuss _some_ _buggy_ boot code, which by some strange reason uses FFh as boot drive # (how this relates to FD boot code?), we discuss, should _FD boot code_ expect drive# from BIOS or use fixed values. 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? How this alien buggy SYS relates to our boot code and dependence from BIOS info? --- 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
Re: Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
The BIOS Boot specification warns that only 0 and 80h can be [...] [...] interesting enough... Nevertheless, trying it gives me 404... Moved - http://www.phoenix.com/NR/rdonlyres/56E38DE2-3E6F-4743-835F-B4A53726ABED/0/specsbbs101.pdf --- 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
RE: Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi, >The BIOS Boot specification >(http://www.phoenix.com/resources/specs-bbs101.pdf) warns that only >0 and >80h can be safely considered as boot devices, albeit it recommends The link looks interesting enough... Nevertheless, trying it gives me 404... Do I have to be subscribed? Aitor --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hello, Award BIOS dated 1999 for Intel i810, and the original IBM PC/AT BIOS don't seem to pass anything in DL on Int 19h. How did I verify it? For those who can't guess, let this be my little secret ;-G (Table 00653) Values Bootstrap loader is called with (IBM BIOS): CS:IP = h:7C00h DH = access bits 7-6,4-0: don't care bit 5: =0 device supported by INT 13 DL = boot drive 00h first floppy 80h first hard disk The above excerpt from the RBIL also proves that not all BIOSes pass boot drive in DL on Int 19h, and even if they do (e.g. IBM BIOS), they pass *only* 0 or 80h. Period. (And end of FF kludge ;-) Regards, Lucho --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
My AwardBIOS here for example does have such a feature. However, when I look at the boot record of my second hard drive, I see again boot drive = 80. Do you try to boot from second drive with this boot record (which contains 80h)? And it boots fine (without accessing first disk)? Yes, of course. So, BIOS probably swaps Not probably - surely. "Probably"?! In this case it not need to pass to boot code information about boot drive! The BIOS Boot specification (http://www.phoenix.com/resources/specs-bbs101.pdf) warns that only 0 and 80h can be safely considered as boot devices, albeit it recommends (but doesn't require) that BIOS passes boot device in DL on Int 19h. The 0/80h limitation is due to the MS-DOS boot sectors, of course. So, whatever we decide, we should remove the FF kludge in any case. I already expressed my opinion - I agree with Jeremy and Eric that choice (2) is better for compatibility reasons. "Will"? Do you mean, that currend FD boot record (with FFh mask) doesn't work when loading FD from second disk?! It works until replaced by another boot sector that tries to boot off drive FF. --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Although I dislike the idea of patching the bootsector, choice 2 does seem most compatible and is slightly smaller boot code (as the logic is moved to sys). I agree and prefer method 2 too. The distance between this new patched boot sector offset and the existing boot segment offset seems constant for all boot sectors, so patch location IS uniform ;-) --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 12-Сен-2004 14:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom ehlert) wrote to Luchezar Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Only 0 and 80 are used by MS-DOS. All other values are "FreeDOS extensions" ;-) te> are you SURE ? How strange. B-\ I receive this letter two minutes back, whereas I answer yesterday to Lucho's letter, where was answer to this letter. Somewhere works time machine? --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 12-Сен-2004 12:41 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth J. Davis) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: KJD> So the options are: KJD> 1) current KJD> Cons: if one needs compatibility with other boot sectors or KJD> has a buggy value passed to the boot sector, one must KJD> explicitly provide the drive value to use (via sys /B # KJD> or with a disk editor) KJD> 2) Alternate KJD> - the boot sector code has at a fixed location KJD> useBIOSorNotFixedLocation: KJD> mov [drive], dl KJD> - SYS is then responsible for determining if BIOS provided value KJD> is used As I understand, there is not possible to determine, if BIOS is buggy or conformant. KJD> Cons: another position specific chunk of code in the boot code Yes. And another stone on the way of optimization. Also, as "kernel.sys" name at end of boot record requires additional code to reuse it. KJD> is moved to sys). Please indicate which choice you prefer, or if you KJD> feel the alternate should be done a simpler method, please specify. I prefer method 1 - it may troublesome on some buggy systems, but on normal machines allows to be more flexible. For example, move bootable disk from one machine to other. --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 12-Сен-2004 16:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LG> Hallo Tom, "D:"==second disk? Second disk is a 81h value. >>> Only 0 and 80 are used by MS-DOS. All other values are "FreeDOS >>> extensions" ;-) >> are you SURE ? Strange, I not seen letters with these discussions (after I send my letter with sentence from top). B-\ LG> Just checked that, and now I'm even more sure. (Rhetoric question) How you checked this? Anyway, you may store into boot record fixed value for boot drive or even precompute partition properties, but sure: later, with advanced tools, you will have the troubles (like there was troubles with Partition Magic, which resizes partition, when our boot code was contains some precomputed by SYS values). So, again: why not use BIOS information which it passes to us (and, thus, make less flexible/rocksolid solution)?! >> I remember a BIOS that had the option to boot from 2'nd drive. >> this only makes sense if DOS then boots from 0x81. LG> My AwardBIOS here for example does have such a feature. However, when I LG> look at the boot record of my second hard drive, I see again boot drive = LG> 80. Do you try to boot from second drive with this boot record (which contains 80h)? And it boots fine (without accessing first disk)? LG> So, BIOS probably swaps "Probably"?! In this case it not need to pass to boot code information about boot drive! LG> the hard drives in this case, much the same LG> way it can swap the floppy drives A: and B:, if that feature is enabled. See the difference: _swap_ A/B and _boot_ C or D. LG> And if so, our "extensions" will be in conflict with the BIOS. "Will"? Do you mean, that currend FD boot record (with FFh mask) doesn't work when loading FD from second disk?! LG> Therefore, LG> I propose to set the default boot drive to 0 for A/B (as it is now), 80 LG> for C/D and FF in all other cases, unless /B specified. --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
So the options are: 1) current - use 0xFF in BPB.drive to indicate to boot code to use BIOS provided drive in DL, otherwise use value in BPB.drive - the boot sector code can be anywhere and is similar to: cmp [BPB.drive], 0xFF jmp dont_use_bios mov [BPB.drive], dl dont_use_bios: - sys defaults to setting BPB.drive to 0 for floppy (A: or B:) and 0xFF for any other drive, but using /B # option you can have it set any arbitrary value you want Pros: the detection code is in the boot sector, default behavior handles whatever BIOS drive booted from even if changed since SYS was performed and no fixed position code. No position specific code to keep in sync with sys. [This also works with both our FD bootsector and the OEM one.] Cons: if one needs compatibility with other boot sectors or has a buggy value passed to the boot sector, one must explicitly provide the drive value to use (via sys /B # or with a disk editor) 2) Alternate - use 0 or 80 only in the boot sector (or really any value the user wants, but default to 0 or 80) - the boot sector code has at a fixed location useBIOSorNotFixedLocation: mov [drive], dl - SYS is then responsible for determining if BIOS provided value is used or not by patching useBIOSorNotFixedLocation with NOPs if BPB.drive is to be used or not touching it to use provided value e.g. SYS C: /USEBPBDRIVE sets BPB.drive to 0x80 and NOPs out the mov [drive], dl code, but SYS C: /B 81 only sets the BPB.drive to 0x81 still using the provided boot drive not the value in BPB.drive (so the 0x81 is for other programs). A value of 0xFF will no longer be a magic value. Pros: seems most compatible as our boot sector will have 0 or 80 most of the time, user can still specify arbitrary value Cons: another position specific chunk of code in the boot code for sys to keep up with. Needs another option or to change the option to indicate both value in the BPB and whether to patch out the use of the provided value or not. (In case your curious, we only need to set [BPB.drive] once as later we reload and use the value in [BPB.drive], which if not overwritten by DL will be the value put in the BPB by sys.) Although I dislike the idea of patching the bootsector, choice 2 does seem most compatible and is slightly smaller boot code (as the logic is moved to sys). Please indicate which choice you prefer, or if you feel the alternate should be done a simpler method, please specify. Thanks, Jeremy --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hallo Tom, "D:"==second disk? Second disk is a 81h value. Only 0 and 80 are used by MS-DOS. All other values are "FreeDOS extensions" ;-) are you SURE ? Just checked that, and now I'm even more sure. I remember a BIOS that had the option to boot from 2'nd drive. this only makes sense if DOS then boots from 0x81. My AwardBIOS here for example does have such a feature. However, when I look at the boot record of my second hard drive, I see again boot drive = 80. So, BIOS probably swaps the hard drives in this case, much the same way it can swap the floppy drives A: and B:, if that feature is enabled. And if so, our "extensions" will be in conflict with the BIOS. Therefore, I propose to set the default boot drive to 0 for A/B (as it is now), 80 for C/D and FF in all other cases, unless /B specified. Regards, Lucho --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hello Luchezar, >> "D:"==second disk? Second disk is a 81h value. > Only 0 and 80 are used by MS-DOS. All other values are "FreeDOS > extensions" ;-) are you SURE ? I remember a BIOS that had the option to boot from 2'nd drive. this only makes sense if DOS then boots from 0x81. tom --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
I don't understand this. SYS writes 0/FF only into its own images, builtin into SYS executables. And, if _after_ SYS someone will change boot loader, then 0/FF value also will be replaced. Where is trouble? The trouble is that most SYSes don't bother to set this value - they just copy the whole data area from the old boot sector and replace only the code and OEM ID. So the FF remains there. Verified. "D:"==second disk? Second disk is a 81h value. Only 0 and 80 are used by MS-DOS. All other values are "FreeDOS extensions" ;-) I think, current behavior (use fixed drive# in case of A:/C: and BIOS value in other cases, including HDs), is good and flexible way. Currently, fixed drive number 0 is used for floppies, but for hard disks, FF is used, which is troublesome if FreeDOS is replaced by another DOS later. Now Jeremy added an option to set the boot drive to an arbitrary value, which solves the issue. But FF is still default for hard disks. --- 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
Re: [Freedos-kernel] Boot sector drive incompatibility with other boot sectors
Hi! 10-Сен-2004 20:05 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LG> "brain-dead" BIOSes if the boot drive is A: (but not if it's C:), the FF LG> value written to by SYS causes a compatibility problem. What happens if LG> someone decides to overwrite our boot sector later with a boot sector from LG> another DOS? The FF will remain there (I checked that with PC-DOS) and the LG> new boot sector will try to boot off drive FF, which will fail. Being too LG> smart sometimes hurts (if everyone else is dumb ;-) I don't understand this. SYS writes 0/FF only into its own images, builtin into SYS executables. And, if _after_ SYS someone will change boot loader, then 0/FF value also will be replaced. Where is trouble? Or, do you mean, that someone will _add_ own boot sector _into SYS_? But added boot sectors should follow some rules, including "boot drive field" (which, of course, internally may be ignored). LG> So, I propose that SYS stores 0 if the drive is A: or B:, 80 if the drive LG> is C: or D:, "D:"==second disk? Second disk is a 81h value. LG> and FF in all other cases, and that we add a special boot LG> drive option that can be used by advanced users to store whatever value LG> they like. We could also just leave that value unchanged from the old boot LG> sector as most other SYSes doo, For this, SYS should verify, that it knows old boot record andr that mask is placed at expected position. Too fuzzy and ambuguous. LG> thus placing the responcibility on FORMAT LG> ;-) Please express your opinions on this issue. Changing the SYS behaviour LG> is easy, but taking the right decision isn't. I think, current behavior (use fixed drive# in case of A:/C: and BIOS value in other cases, including HDs), is good and flexible way. --- 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
