|
From: Michael B. <mb...@fe...> - 2002-09-19 07:43:49
|
On 18 Sep 2002, Eric W Biederman wrote: > > > > Last time I tried 5.1, it failed to even detect my BIOS. I'm think this > > > > is an E820-related problem that I've fixed once before already, but I just > > > > don't have time to hack on Etherboot at the moment. However, if someone > > > > can tell me why, on some machines, Windows 98 takes forever (45 mins+) to > > > > start up if booted via Etherboot's "Boot (L)ocal" option, then I might > > > > regain some spare time. :-) > > > BIOS Bug. Almost certainly. All we do is return to the BIOS. > > > Unless there is something we don't reset to it's original state? Some > > > bits of test code (Returning ealier to the BIOS) could identify if > > > whatever it is has changed yet, so it should be trackable. > > Thanks; that's confirmed what I thought would be the best debug strategy. > > It's certainly a BIOS or hardware-specific problem; it will happen on a > > batch of machines of the same hardware type. We tried looking at Windows > > 98's idea of a diagnostic boot log, but gave up when we found it contained > > only six (unhelpful) lines. > I thought of one other possibility to try. We might be stomping BIOS tables > if etherboot is loading to high. Setting RELOCADDR lower might be worth > a shot. Will try, thanks. > Which vesion of etherboot does the crawl show up with? 5.0.7. I did send a floppy of 5.1 to be tried, but it wouldn't even load up. I won't find out any more until one of the problematic machines gets delivered to me for testing. Michael Brown http://www.fensystems.co.uk |
