Re: linux + win95: linux boot partition/
On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 08:39:00AM -0400, Richardson,Anthony wrote:
> > The 1024 problem is a very "real" one.
> Please, it really occurs in very few systems/configurations. It had been a
> problem for me occasinally because of some older mainboards lying around
> here. It is no problem with harddisks and mainboards bought over the last
> three years.
^^^^^^^^^ eh?
I'm very happy for you. I now run eight linux boxes, three of them modern
enough that I had to use patched kernels for the SCSI until bo was released.
However, the other five are all well over three years old and the mainboards
don't "lie around", they earn their keep.
However, I have had the good fortune to acquire bigger disks, mainly because
disks have necessarily fallen like manna from heaven as the rest of the
lusers here (MS drones) have been migrated to W95. So for me, the 1024
limit is an increasing problem, not a diminishing one. Not immediately
obvious, perhaps.
> > Some BIOSes allow you to choose whether translation should be done with
> > settings like "Large" or "LBA" for other BIOSes translation is on by
> > default.
> All BIOSes I saw until now gave me the LBA option which I choose.
> See below.
Only one of my five older machines has heard of LBA.
While I smile when I read some of the HOWTOs I printed off several years
ago, I don't forget that there are plently of people still grappling
with older hardware (some still running 1.2.13 as well!). It's
refreshing that linux allows one to make such choices. The only thing
our administrators know what to do with such hardware is bin it.
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
Reply to: