Message-ID: <001501c26296$2e6877d0$3036ed18@ross2mustss87c> From: "John T Ross" To: , Subject: HIMEM.SYS and DOS 8 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:14:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C26253.20052190" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C26253.20052190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 Matthias Paul wrote: >A forth solution is to combine the DR-DOS 7.05 IBMBIO.COM >with the DR-DOS 7.03 IBMDOS.COM. This will give the OS full >native LBA capabilities (at a minimal extra memory footprint), >but no FAT32 support. Since the 7.05 BIOS would try to log >in FAT32 partitions, which the 7.03 BDOS could not handle, >it is important that you do *not* have any FAT32 partitions, >in case you want to give this unofficial solution a try. >In case there would be strong interest in this solution, >I might (no promise!) come up with a binary patch to keep >the 7.05 BIOS from logging in FAT32 partitions, so that >it can be used a bit more savely. (sic safely?) You previously explained to me use of the extended partition type C5h, instead of the old 05h type, to allow DR-DOS 7.03 coexist with a LBA enabled OS using disk space above 8 Gb. Will you elaborate on the combination of the DR-DOS 7.05 IBMBIO.COM and DR-DOS 7.03 IBMBIO.COM files? I understand one's need to ensure the hard drive doesn't contain any FAT32 partitions. I agree that a binary patch to keep the 7.05 BIOS from logging into FAT32 partitions is a useful saftey net. If I use a PC with a flash BIOS that supports LBA hard drives, what does this 4th solution offer that the former doesn't? I assume it limits one to using a single OS on the hard drive? Since no FAT32 partitions are used (or read with the binary patch) DR-DOS 7.03 is still limited to 2 Gb partitions isn't it? Would this combination of IBMBIO.COM files and the binary patch mean the evolution of DR-DOS 7.03b to DR-DOS 7.03c? I for one would like to know more about this solution and the binary patch also. Thank you, John =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C26253.20052190 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 Matthias Paul=20 wrote:
 
>A forth solution is to combine the DR-DOS 7.05 = IBMBIO.COM
>with=20 the DR-DOS 7.03 IBMDOS.COM. This will give the OS full
>native LBA = capabilities (at a minimal extra memory footprint),
>but no FAT32 = support.=20 Since the 7.05 BIOS would try to log
>in FAT32 partitions, which = the 7.03=20 BDOS could not handle,
>it is important that you do *not* have any = FAT32=20 partitions,
>in case you want to give this unofficial solution a=20 try.
>In case there would be strong interest in this = solution,
>I=20 might (no promise!) come up with a binary patch to keep
>the 7.05 = BIOS=20 from logging in FAT32 partitions, so that
>it can be used a bit = more=20 savely.
 
(sic safely?)
 
You previously explained to me use of = the=20 extended
partition type C5h, instead of the old = 05h type,=20 to allow
DR-DOS 7.03 coexist with a LBA enabled = OS using=20 disk
space above 8 Gb.
 
Will you elaborate on the combination = of the=20 DR-DOS 7.05
IBMBIO.COM and DR-DOS 7.03 IBMBIO.COM = files?=20 I
understand=20 one's need to ensure the hard drive doesn't
contain any=20 FAT32 partitions. I agree that a binary patch
to keep the=20 7.05 BIOS from logging into FAT32 partitions
is a useful=20 saftey net.
 
If I use a PC with a flash BIOS that = supports=20 LBA hard
drives, what=20 does this 4th solution offer that the former
doesn't?
 
I assume it limits one to using a = single OS on=20 the hard
drive?
 
Since no FAT32 partitions are used = (or read=20 with the
binary patch) DR-DOS 7.03 is still = limited to 2=20 Gb
partitions isn't it?
 
Would this combination of IBMBIO.COM = files and=20 the
binary patch mean the evolution of = DR-DOS 7.03b=20 to
DR-DOS 7.03c?
 
I for one would like to know more = about=20 this solution and
the binary patch also.
 
Thank you,
 
John   
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C26253.20052190--