On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, John wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:34:10PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> > In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > > OK! Well! Good news! After a sort.
> > > > >
> > > > > I
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:34:10PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John wrote:
> [..]
> > > > OK! Well! Good news! After a sort.
> > > >
> > > > I switched to BootMgr, and it came right up with 8.0!
>
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 294, Issue 12, Message 19
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:35:21 -0600 John wrote:
[..]
> > > OK! Well! Good news! After a sort.
> > >
> > > I switched to BootMgr, and it came right up with 8.0!
> > >
> > > Slight downside - extra prompt during boot, and of course,
John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:35:21PM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Ja
> OK - my current best theory is that if the Standard boot manager
> is faced with anything other than exactly 1 bootable slice (partition
> to it), it defaults to "Invalid partition table." I'll bet anyone
> lunch that this is true. Any takers?
I've read before:
the standard bootloader lo
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:35:21PM -0600, John wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:01:02AM -0600, John wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:09:50AM -0600, John wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > > > John wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:27:56AM -0600, John wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > > John wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > > >> John wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 20
John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
John wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
John wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
John wrote:
I've tried the "modern
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 06:36:14AM -0600, John wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > John wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > >> John wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> > John wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:16:59PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> John wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> >> John wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> John wrote:
> > I've tried the "modern BIOS" geometry and the "255 head" geometry.
John wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:25:26PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
John wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
John wrote:
I've tried the "modern BIOS" geometry and the "255 head" geometry.
I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5
Gb. I've tri
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:38:22PM +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> John wrote:
> > I've tried the "modern BIOS" geometry and the "255 head" geometry.
> > I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5
> > Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry
> > is, but it doesn
John wrote:
I've tried the "modern BIOS" geometry and the "255 head" geometry.
I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5
Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry
is, but it doesn't seem to want to tell me. At least, I can't find
it in the BIOS menu
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:47:59 -0600
John wrote:
> Suggestions, please? I'm making zero headway right now. :(
Maybe it is just me, but somehow I am missing the problem / question.
Andreas
--
GnuPG key : 0x2A573565|http://www.gnupg.org/howtos/de/
Fingerprint: 925D 2089 0BF9 8DE5 9166 33
I've tried the "modern BIOS" geometry and the "255 head" geometry.
I've ensured that the first slice (boot slice) is smaller than 1.5
Gb. I've tried to figure out what the BIOS thinks the geometry
is, but it doesn't seem to want to tell me. At least, I can't find
it in the BIOS menu anywhere. Wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
