At 12:50 AM -0600 7/6/00, John Galt wrote:
>Is there a quick and dirty way for the label editor to detect if
>a BIOS is using LBA? This actually sounds like a setup in which
>the error condition should be alerted on placing / on a cylinder
>higher than 1024 rather than long after you can do anyth
>
> Is there a quick and dirty way for the label editor to detect if a BIOS is
> using LBA?
No.
> This actually sounds like a setup in which the error condition
> should be alerted on placing / on a cylinder higher than 1024 rather than
> long after you can do anything about it.
There's actual
Is there a quick and dirty way for the label editor to detect if a BIOS is
using LBA? This actually sounds like a setup in which the error condition
should be alerted on placing / on a cylinder higher than 1024 rather than
long after you can do anything about it. The loader error might be a goo
At 3:18 PM -0700 7/5/00, Mike Smith wrote:
>someone else wrote:
> > The only time this showed up as problem was that when I reinstalled
> > the loader (and related forth files), loader silently was not able
> > to read /boot or /modules- the key word here is "silently".
> >
> > There ought to be a
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > This really bit me- it shouldn't have- but it did
> >
> > I had a i386 system with a 4GB disk -- root partition ~1GB but the
> > motherboard was setting up BIOS as a CHS instead of an LBA arrangement.
> >
> > The only time this showed up
>
> This really bit me- it shouldn't have- but it did
>
> I had a i386 system with a 4GB disk -- root partition ~1GB but the
> motherboard was setting up BIOS as a CHS instead of an LBA arrangement.
>
> The only time this showed up as problem was that when I reinstalled the
> loader (a
