From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 18 17:07:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA17492 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from news.IAEhv.nl (root@news.IAEhv.nl [194.151.64.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17477 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:06:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from LOCAL (uucp@localhost) by news.IAEhv.nl (8.6.13/1.63) with IAEhv.nl; pid 4560 on Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:06:38 +0100; id CAA04560 efrom: peter@grendel.IAEhv.nl; eto: UNKNOWN Received: (from peter@localhost) by grendel.IAEhv.nl (8.8.4/8.8.4) id BAA00251; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:11:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:11:20 +0100 From: peter@grendel.IAEhv.nl (Peter Korsten) To: toneil@visigenic.com (Tim Oneil) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? References: <3.0.32.19970218102743.00998100@visigenic.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.58-PL15 Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970218102743.00998100@visigenic.com>; from Tim Oneil on Feb 18, 1997 10:27:43 -0800 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Tim Oneil shared with us: > > > >[splash screen] > > Thats for sure. Even though Microsoft played Win95 off as a 'true 32 bit' > os, and it looks really neat while the 'hardware wizard' does its own > probing and selects device drivers and etc, at boot time I notice that > it continues to load the old 16 bit drivers that were (on this particular > machine) there before 95 was installed. I presume that these drivers are > loaded becuase 95 happily continues to execute whatever autoexec.bat is > present. But I have to wonder, is 95 actually using those 16 bit drivers, > or does it discard them after it restores state? Oh, sure it uses them. A lot of the instability of 95 is caused by those 16 bits drivers (so cleaning your autoexec.bat and config.sys is a Good Thing). It even installs drivers that hook on INT13, in- cluding virusses (no joke). An example of how 95 uses the autoexec.bat etc. can be experienced if you have a box with a primary DOS partition (C:) with DOS and 3.11, a extended with 95 (D:) and OS/2, a FreeBSD partition (or slice, in BSD terms) and the OS/2 boot manager. Try telling 95 that it should boot from D:. Ha! > I much prefer the probe > messages on my BSD box, at least I have a fighting chance of knowing > EXACTLY whats wrong if something fails at boot time. Well, yes, but since I boot my system more often than that I mess it up, I think the splash screen is a neat idea. - Peter -- Peter Korsten | peter@grendel.IAEhv.nl (UUCP) | peterk@IAEhv.nl C/C++/Perl/Java hacker