get me off this list Gertjan Klein wrote:
> Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Gertjan Klein wrote: > > > Obviously > > these are judgement calls and opinions but when the original hard disk code > > was written decisions were made concerning such things as sizes for device > > storage parameters. While what you have said about the cost of 10Meg HDs > > and the like is true, that fact did not seem to influence others in such a > > limiting way about how to deal with the matter. More importantly, I > > think, is that it has taken many years to finally to address this issue. > > The original harddisk code was written for (relatively) cheap > hardware. SCSI harddisks, using block addressing, were of course > around, but much more expensive. Nevertheless, even though the > partition table entries specify the location of partitions in cylinder, > head, and sector parameters, they _also_ specify them in logical block > numbers. Using these numbers a harddisk of 2 TB (2048 GB) can be > described. Note, again, that the partition table layout has nothing to > do with the BIOS. The BIOS provided an interface for cheap hardware; if > demand would have been higher for better quality hardware, like built-in > support for SCSI drives, it would have been there. Nothing in the PC > design prevents this - in fact, my BIOS directly supports (NCR) SCSI > controllers. On top of that, the PC design allows for _really_ non > standard (for PC's, anyway) hardware to have it's own BIOS to take over > the standard BIOS calls. > > >> I'm not exactly sure what you think is the nightmare part of the > >> original design (and frankly, I don't care). There are a ... > > > And if you don't care then we are probably both wasting our time. > > No - because I am not trying to change your _opinion_ on PC hardware, > I am just trying to stop you from spreading misinformation about it. I > realize very well that a lot of compromises have been made with PC > design over the years, there is enough to complain about - so if you > want to do that, go ahead, but get your facts straight. > > >> * There is a limited number of primary partitions available in the MBR. > >> This limitation is no serious problem, as many modern OSes don't object > >> to being installed in an extended partition (of which there can be as > >> many as required). > > > Yes, many often incompatible workarounds exist. > > What do you mean with "incompatible workarounds"? What's incompatible > about booting from an extended partition? > > > No there is nothing brain dead about partitioning a drive and I see no way > > that anyone could conclude from anything that I have said that I think > > otherwise. It is the arbitrary decision to create the "tiered" partition > > types (primary, extended, and logical) abstraction that I object to. > > Since the partition table resides in the MBR, with limited space, > _some_ limit had to be set to the number of entries in the table. Four, > at the time, was a reasonable limit. When the limit became - well, > limiting, MS introduced extended partitions - which is nothing other > than a way to arbitrarily expand the partition table. It seems like a > reasonable solution to me. > > > These "modern BIOSes" have finally caught up with BIOSes of more than > > twenty years ago. Are you suggesting that had different decisions > > concerning how to deal compatibly with the various limitation that were > > arbitrarily built into the original design had been handled differently > > that the PC would not be as popular or have such a favorable > > performance/price ratio as it currently has? > > Yes. (I don't want to get into this, though, because there is no way > to prove one way or the other). > > > I have "lost it". In as much as I really do not wish to mislead anyone > > then by "misinformation" are you talking about my assertions with respect > > to the BIOS design (and indeed design evolution) upon the overall > > filesystem design, or rather my (admitted) failure to even mention that > > there are new BIOS designs that do not themselves impose this scheme, or > > both? > > Your misinformation was that: > > - BIOS imposes the current partitioning scheme opon us, and limits the > number of primary partitions to four (not true - BIOS knows nothing > about partitions and doesn't care either). > > - DOS, Windows and OS/2 don't see other primary partitions than the one > they booted from (not true - DOS and Windows see other primary DOS > partitions just fine, and OS/2 won't even boot when they are present and > not "hidden"). > > - fdisk /mbr will wipe out everything on the drive (wrong - it just > replaces (or installs) the MBR software without touching the partition > table). > > - (A point I hadn't addressed yet:) loadlin uses BIOS calls for drive > access (wrong - it uses DOS calls, which can, but don't have to, > translate into BIOS calls). > > You _still_ don't seem to get that partitioning and BIOS have nothing > to do with each other, and that the BIOS is simply just a piece of > software - if the current interface is not longer sufficient, it is very > easy to change the BIOS to provide a new interface, or extend the > current one. This has happened already - if it happened too late to > your liking, complain about the market forces that dictated the > development direction. The older XT BIOSes were around 8 kB - current > BIOSes can be as large as 1 MB. Things _have_ changed. > > > As I pointed out in the previous message, I have seen many PCs with > > multiple primary partitions where only ONE primary partition is visible to > > DOS or Windoz (or OS2 for that matter). > > This may be a silly question, but are these other partitions DOS > partitions? If not, why do you expect DOS to natively support non-DOS > filesystems? If they are, the only explanation I can give is that the > used boot manager (presumably OS/2's, but mine can do that too) hides > the other partitions. > > [Hardware behaving sub-standard and incompatible] > > No argument from me here (other than that this, again, is not inherent > to PC design but to manufacturers selling hardware that is not up to > standard, presumably to make it cheaper). > > > In a sense all of this opinion matters not. The PC is what it is and it > > does seem to be evolving in the "right" direction even if it has taken > > nearly 15 years to do make significant progress. > > You are right, all these opinions don't matter, and worse, are > off-topic. I apologize for not sticking to the point I was trying to > make, which is not to refute your opinions about the PCs, but to correct > the errors described above. > > Gertjan. > > -- > Gertjan Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The Boot Control home page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gklein/bcpage.html > > -- > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
