Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

SARDU 2.0.5 Final


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#26 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:44 PM

Yes, I have a setup for the floppy too and that works. Getting bootitng to boot from a flash doesn't mean it will work
correctly. I rebuild my XP system once a month and bootitNG gets deactivated when installing. I then boot from a flash
drive with bootitng.iso so that it can be reactivated. If you boot without swapping drives for example, bootitng will not
be able to reactivate itself and the selection for this is greyed out. Deactivating bootitng is the only good way I 've found
of testing whether I have the correct boot parms to manage bootitng correctly

Edited by adric, 09 October 2012 - 04:45 PM.


#27 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:56 PM

Yes, I have a setup for the floppy too and that works.

So, what is the problem? AFAIK/AFAICR the floppy and the .iso have the same functions. :unsure:

Getting bootitng to boot from a flash doesn't mean it will work
correctly. I rebuild my XP system once a month and bootitNG gets deactivated when installing. I then boot from a flash
drive with bootitng.iso so that it can be reactivated. If you boot without swapping drives for example, bootitng will not
be able to reactivate itself and the selection for this is greyed out. Deactivating bootitng is the only good way I 've found
of testing whether I have the correct boot parms to manage bootitng correctly

I really don't get it. :dubbio:
Of course the hard disks need to be swapped.
Once you have (obviously) swapped them, does the floppy work or does it not?
Or, more loosely, does the .iso work BUT not the floppy?
Besides the possible bug introduced in the mentioned relase of grub4dos, generically there is little sense in booting from a .iso that actually boots from a floppy image instead of directly booting the floppy image. (of course provided that the directlly booted floppy image works)

:cheers:
Wonko

#28 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:27 AM

The reason I decided on using the ISO was that I could use it for
booting from a flash drive as well as booting from CD. Also, there's
a discrepancy in what gets greyed-out in the selection menu when booting
from .img and booting natively from diskette. No discrepancy with native
boot from diskette and booting from ISO, which is why I decided not to mess
with the .img. When I said it works, I meant the boot process using the .img.
as compared with the iso using the new grub. If the .img produces the same
results as the ISO, I don't know or really want to spend the time to find out.

Anyway, the reason why I even brought this up was that my setup stopped working
and was wondering why. Either the old grub had a bug that allowed my setup or
the new grub has a bug that doesn't allow it. I have several options so I guess we can
leave it at that.

#29 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:19 PM

The reason I decided on using the ISO was that I could use it for
booting from a flash drive as well as booting from CD. Also, there's
a discrepancy in what gets greyed-out in the selection menu when booting
from .img and booting natively from diskette. No discrepancy with native
boot from diskette and booting from ISO, which is why I decided not to mess
with the .img. When I said it works, I meant the boot process using the .img.
as compared with the iso using the new grub. If the .img produces the same
results as the ISO, I don't know or really want to spend the time to find out.

Anyway, the reason why I even brought this up was that my setup stopped working
and was wondering why. Either the old grub had a bug that allowed my setup or
the new grub has a bug that doesn't allow it. I have several options so I guess we can
leave it at that.

Can you expand on the "discrepancy"?

Just an idea, but what you could try is this nice trick here:
http://reboot.pro/99...__25#entry86679
http://www.msfn.org/...on/page__st__31
(only reversed).
Try making a ..iso with the floppy + the header.
Verify that it boots (with the "older, working" version of grub4dos).
Try mapping it (directly or to --mem) skipping the initial header and test with both the "new" and "older" grub4dos.
Something *like*:

map (hd1) (hd0)

map (hd0) (hd1)

map (hd0,0)/ISO_Extra/BOOTITNG.ISO (0xFE)

map --hook

map (0xFE)26+720 (fd0)

map --hook

root (fd0)

chainloader (fd0)

boot

Check if the same works with the original .iso. (the offset to the beginning of the floppy image might be different).

:cheers:
Wonko

#30 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:14 AM

Can you expand on the "discrepancy"?


The discrepancy was in the list of selectable items. When booting the
diskette natively with BootitNG already activated, all items except the
last entry are greyed-out and the last one (Upgrade BootitNG) is
unticked. When booting the .img all items are greyed-out except the last
two items and the first not greyed-out item (Access BootIt NG Partition)
is ticked and throws an error if you try to to use it.

I will look into your suggestions when I have a little more time and will
post back on the results.

Edited by adric, 11 October 2012 - 10:15 AM.


#31 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:48 AM

Which exact version of BootItNG is it?
This one?
http://web.archive.o...generation.htm?

Version 1.87 made available on November 30, 2009

The thingy seems like being discontinued right now :unsure: and possible replaced by "BootIt Bare Metal". :dubbio:

I'll make a couple tests in a Qemu VM.

:cheers:
Wonko

#32 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:58 AM

That's the one. Bare Metal is the new version, but I saw no need to pay for a new license since this boot manager
has been working well for me ever since my IBM OS/2 days. As I mentioned before, the only good way to test
is to also install the boot manager. I don't know if QEMU will allow this.

BTW, nice website for a bookmark. What did you use to find Version 1.87? I tried a few searches, but did not
come up with anything.

Edited by adric, 11 October 2012 - 11:10 AM.


#33 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:04 PM

BTW, nice website for a bookmark. What did you use to find Version 1.87? I tried a few searches, but did not
come up with anything.

It works the other way round.
You go here:
http://archive.org/index.php
and enter the address of the site (or an old link no more working) and then "explore" various dates until (hopefully) you find what you were looking for.
There is no search facility in the Wayback Machine, though, finding things on it is more like "art" ;) then "science".
The Qemu machine works allright (in the sense that I can install the bootmanager to the hard disk allright, but while there are definately some "timing" issues with booting, the "CD" works for me very like you described:

When booting the diskette natively with BootitNG already activated, all items except the
last entry are greyed-out and the last one (Upgrade BootitNG) is
unticked.


though whilst only last item is the only one NOT greyed out, it is ticked. (I presume like the installed version was a "previous" one) and the diskette behaves exactly the same. :dubbio:
Possibly because it is in "trial/not registered" mode. :unsure:

:cheers:
Wonko

#34 davidecosta

davidecosta

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 678 posts
  • Location:Sardinia
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:17 PM

Excuse me adric but....what I do not understand what does all this have with the thread of release of SARDU?

#35 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:34 PM

Excuse me adric but....what I do not understand what does all this have with the thread of release of SARDU?



It's actually my fault :blush: Davide, sorry :(
I replied to the initial post by adric without noticing WHERE it was posted and "got carried away".

Possibly a Mod or Admin may want to move the last few posts to the grub4dos Forum. :unsure:


:cheers:
Wonko

#36 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

Yes, sorry for getting OT.

#37 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:17 AM

Excuse me adric but....what I do not understand what does all this have with the thread of release of SARDU?


It means that SARDU is using a buggy version of Grub4DOS. See http://code.google.c...ail?id=97&can=1
What was the reason updating grub4dos-0.4.4 (2009) and why wait so long (2012) - was it not working correctly anymore?

#38 davidecosta

davidecosta

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 678 posts
  • Location:Sardinia
  •  
    Italy

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:34 PM

Do you see other release featured?

Are you sure that using the old version grub4dos-0.4.4 (2009) SARDU works fine?

You have made ​​some tests?

And see this thread

#39 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

Do you see other release featured?

I do not see a new stable version with this new fix included yet..
http://code.google.c.../downloads/list

Are you sure that using the old version grub4dos-0.4.4 (2009) SARDU works fine?

Yes, it works fine.

You have made ​​some tests?

I'm the one that opened the bug report. That is the reason why this thread went off topic. My ISO would no longer boot after SARDU updated to the new GRUB4DOS.

And see this thread

Since the new version fixed a problem for you and created on for me, you may as well wait until there is a new stable version released. My workaround is to replace the new grub with the .0.0.4 grub.exe in the boot directory after SARDU is finished with
the flash drive.

Edited by adric, 24 October 2012 - 10:55 AM.


#40 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

adric,
you may want to tone it down a bit :).
The 0.4.4-2009-06-20 version you were using is actually a NON recommended one, the "right one" being 0.4.4 2009-10-16 which is NOT (and I will repeat NOT) anyway a "stable" or "final" version, it is simply last version of the 0.4.4 series a "final" 0.4.4 was NEVER released.

The choice of using chenall 0.4.5 versions has been recommended by the actual Authors of grub4dos and it is the "right" choice.

Of course it is possible that a bug (specific for the bootitNG thingy) creeped in the new versions (that anyway offer a large number of improvements in functionality and syntax).

Layman's example ;):
Tyres on wheelbarrows have proven to be better than solid wood wheels on *any* possible occasion exception made for crossing a street covered by 4 pointed nails.
That doesn't mean that because you have to cross such a street with your wheelbarrow ALL wheelbarrows should have wooden wheels.

davidecosta did the "right thing", if you want I can try helping you in troubleshooting the issue (which at the moment I wasn't able to reproduce).

The "right" solution until the matter is solved is NOT (IMNSHO) to replace the grub.exe 0.4.5c-2012-06-19 in Sardu distribution, but rather to add the version that works for you in a folder and chainload that version to boot the BootitNG thingy.

:cheers:
Wonko

#41 davidecosta

davidecosta

    Silver Member

  • Developer
  • 678 posts
  • Location:Sardinia
  •  
    Italy

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:52 AM

Since the new version fixed a problem for you and created on for me, you may as well wait until there is a new stable version released. My workaround is to replace the new grub with the .0.0.4 grub.exe in the boot directory after SARDU is finished with
the flash drive.


then I should release a version that works for you and not for me. Who are you? I created a problem for you? Do not use SARDU and the problems end
I look like any of your employees. I have to give explanations to you. You present yourself in an arrogant manner asking me the reasons for my choices.
If you had asked in a better way would have taken the opportunity to use two GRUB, as I did for the syslinux...

#42 adric

adric

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 168 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

then I should release a version that works for you and not for me. Who are you? I created a problem for you? Do not use SARDU and the problems end
I look like any of your employees. I have to give explanations to you. You present yourself in an arrogant manner asking me the reasons for my choices.
If you had asked in a better way would have taken the opportunity to use two GRUB, as I did for the syslinux...


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't in any way trying to be arrogant. I was just curious why grub was updated and why I was
having a problem with it. Otherwise, this would never have come up. I was only trying to make you aware of the problem. I
was not blaming you for the problem. Your reasons for updating grub makes sense to me and I would have done the same.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users