Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:51:33 -0400 From: Mark Woodson <mwoodson@wloq.com> To: Robert Clark <res03db2@gte.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Vectra XU 6/xxx Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010407124617.02446d60@192.168.100.3> In-Reply-To: <20010406123520.B19657@darkstar.gte.net> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010406095353.020ae4a0@192.168.100.3> <Mark <XFMail.010404200245.y3k@gti.net> <8766gjdu64.fsf@thanatos.shenton.org> <5.0.2.1.0.20010406095353.020ae4a0@192.168.100.3>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:35 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Robert Clark wrote: >Not to beat a dead horse, but the link I passed on fro GRUB mentioned >a specific problem with the BIOS not finding a bootable partition. > >(or something like that) > >It is possible, that the BIOS is just very picky about what it will >boot from. > >In other words, it may not be the boot code that is bad. I agree that in all likelyhood it's not the boot code that's bad, but rather a limitation of the BIOS on this system. The GRUB link you pointed me to only made reference to BIOS version GG.06.11, which at the time that I first wrote to the list is what I was indeed running. I upgraded to GG.06.13 which still refused to boot. At that point, I reverted to 3.4 which would boot. I would not feel comfortable at all hacking the boot code. As I understand the primary difference between the boot code in the 3.x and 4.x branches is the size of boot block, which is 512 bytes (or one sector) in 3.x and 1024 bytes in 4.x and it wouldn't surprise me if the designers of the system didn't hard code a limitation on the size of the boot block into the hardware... In any case... -Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.0.20010407124617.02446d60>