8 Feb
1999
8 Feb
'99
4:25 p.m.
Just going from my experience. I recently installed Linux on a 1.2gb IDE drive. Then I
fdisk-ed and removed all partitions. Then formatted and got same NO ROM BASIC. This is the
drive I used the low level format on and it has been working great with no problems since.
-----Original Message-----
From: PG Manney [SMTP:manney@hmcltd.net]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 6:33 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: no rom basic
Some hard drives will cause the above message if the 0
track has been
altered (written over) linux is >well know for this and the only
way I know
to resolve this is to low level format the drive. A lot of 386 and >early
486 Award BIOS machines have an option of hard drive utility. If you do
you're all set. I chose a 3 >for the interleave value.
Not on an IDE, though! That's a LLF.
8 Feb
8 Feb
4:50 p.m.
Date sent: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:25:45 -0800
Send reply to: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
From: "F. Paul Passmore III" <fpp(a)concentric.net>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: no rom basic
Originally to: "'classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu'"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Just going from my experience. I recently installed
Linux on a 1.2gb IDE
drive. Then I fdisk-ed and removed all partitions. Then formatted and got
same NO ROM BASIC. This is the drive I used the low level format on and it
has been working great with no problems since.
Hi Paul,
Have you done that?
fdisk /mbr
You done exactly right on everything except LLF which is big NO
No on modern drives, potientially losing it!
And I did not reach for LLF stuff when I converted back from linux to
any OSes on *ANY* hard drives.
Jason D.
6:58 p.m.
jpero(a)cgocable.net wrote:
You done exactly right on everything except LLF which
is big NO
No on modern drives, potientially losing it!
I wish just for once that someone would actually cite a specific drive
model for which this is true. I've LLF'd many of them with no ill
effects.
The ANSI X3.298-1997 standard, "Information Technology - AT Attachment-3
Interface (ATA-3)" says that the FORMAT TRACK command is vendor-specific
and recommends against systems using it, but nowhere does it suggest
that an acceptable implementation would be to trash a drive.
I have seen some drives that treat the command as a NOOP, simply
returning success impediately without actually doing anything, but I've
yet to see one which actually causes any harm to the drive.
If anyone cares to present contrary evidence, please cite specifics.
I'm not interested in FOAF anecdotes.
9321
days inactive
9321
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
eric＠brouhaha.com -
fpp＠concentric.net -
jpero＠cgocable.net