From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Mar 7 09:29:02 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA19586 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:29:02 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA19577 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:28:59 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA24996; Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:21:21 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9503071721.AA24996@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: bootup error? To: rdugaue@netcom.com (SACBBX) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:21:20 MST Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "SACBBX" at Mar 7, 95 08:26:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > When my P90 system comes up, just before the 'testing memory' function > from BSD (not the startup test mem) I get an error/warning that says > something like BIOS base mem (639k) != RTS base mem (640k). > > Anyone know what's up? > Your CMOS claims that there is only 639k. BSD thinks this is ridiculous, and is warning you that it is assuming that the CMOS really meant to say 640k, and that it thinks your CMOS is senile. This is just in case it isn't ridiculous. Probably a better message would be: CMOS claims base memory size is 639k; assuming that it meant to say 640k. This has the advantage of not scaring people, while still presenting the same information. This used to be critically important when 386BSD used to be loaded into lower memory, since it would mean that the 640k that was supposed to be there didn't but up next to the 384k that usually follows the 640k and so you couldn't expect to safely load BSD. 386BSD also had a nice bug when this wasn't 640k that resulted in what was known as "the blinky screen of death". Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.