OSDev.org

targeting me.
First, learn to speak English
Second, I don't know what you are asking.
Third, Any (good) OS should be able to control the hardware
Fourth, Do you know anything about computers?
Fifth, people buy floppies where you live in order to throw them away?

I reply.
first, I accept&agree, I don't know english.
second, what you don't know is not my problem.
third, I agree, about the control, but it is easy to no share it.
forth, I'm registered here after I reply for question about string instructions.
fifth, people don't buy floppies, but some still have them.

first, I learn while I try to communicate with people. Mistakes in my speech? You're welcome to point them so I can improve.
second, I'm genius, not all people can understand me if no read carefully.
third, if I no cooperate, then it's easy.
forth, if I do mistake, this is not the same like I to be stupid.
fifth , when I say people, I no include all people inside.

If any whatever problems with me, just say them and let I haven't problems with anybody.

I read articles here and some of them are in my bla-bla stile, so I thought this will be no problem.

Now, I'll try to make really simple boot sector what to demonstrate my thinking, I'll post it here.

I can actually understand this post. Sorry for being rude, but it's difficult to know anything about the situation if it's in half english.

anftr wrote: I'm genius

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-eoxBSkTGo

Rule one of genius club. Don't tell anyone your a genius

VolTeK, has anyone ever told you that 90% of your posts are incredibly inane?

Wouldn't it help to maybe specify your native language? You may find someone on here that speaks your language and is willing to help you out. As for your idea being genius, I doubt that. Anything revolutionary in technology comes from university and big industry labs--by teams of experts that have spent years in their respective fields. I highly doubt your idea has been overlooked by the industry. All that said, I wish you luck!

I found surprise.

I was knowing that BIOS is capable to work with so wide variants of floppies.

So, I was thinking too... BIOS can boot floppy with 1KB sectors.

And I was wish to make floppy with this geometry:
tracks per side -> 80
sectors per track -> 9 (while testing, later 10 or 11)
bytes per sector -> 1024

This idea come from the fact that big amount of disk space is area what have to be reserved for the time before & after write to sector. Less times needed to start/stop sector, more data you can have. This is possible with larger sectors, and the largest supported type by BIOS is 1KB.

So, I format such diskette, with this geometry. I do several tests, the diskette is working perfectly in the special hacking program what I use. But... my BIOS can not boot from this diskette.

I transfer this boot program to normal diskette, and the BIOS boot it.
But I have one very stupid bug inside and I'll no need to fix it, so I'll no post the code here.

FA 90 B8 C0 07 8E D8 8E C0 8E E0 8E E8 8E D0 90 BE 00 01 FB AC 74 0A B4 0E 90 BB 07 00 CD 10 EB F3 F4 90 81 39 50 45 00 00 75 12 0F B7 41 18 3D 0B 01 00 00 74 1F 3D 0B 02 00 00 74 05 89 5D E4 EB 27 83 B9 84 00 00 00 0E 76 F2 33 C0 39 99 F8 00 00 00 EB 0E 83 79 74 0E 76 E2 33 C0 39 99 E8 00 00 00 49 74 20 77 6F 72 6B 2C 20 63 6F 6E 67 72 61 74 73 21 21 00 9C AB 00 01 FF 83 0D A0 AB 00 01 FF AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 FA 90 B8 C0 07 8E D8 8E C0 8E E0 8E E8 8E D0 90 BE 00 01 FB AC 74 0A B4 0E 90 BB 07 00 CD 10 EB F3 F4 90 81 39 50 45 00 00 75 12 0F B7 41 18 3D 0B 01 00 00 74 1F 3D 0B 02 00 00 74 05 89 5D E4 EB 27 83 B9 84 00 00 00 0E 76 F2 33 C0 39 99 F8 00 00 00 EB 0E 83 79 74 0E 76 E2 33 C0 39 99 E8 00 00 00 49 74 20 77 6F 72 6B 2C 20 63 6F 6E 67 72 61 74 73 21 21 00 9C AB 00 01 FF 83 0D A0 AB 00 01 FF AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA 55 AA

I put the mark 55 AA till the end of track, because I wasn't sure whether BIOS test bytes at offset 511 or offset (end of sector -1)

Fill with data is faster compared to find exact location. Do not lose time to watch binary code above, it's full with bugs, I'll no fix it, neither you. Target: whether BIOS can boot from 1KB sector? After the sector is loaded at 7c00 and there is enough space before 8000 and BIOS support read/write/format 1KB sectors... I already know the answer, it can not do that.

my BIOS do not search for 1KB sized boot sector.

I was hope to demonstrate that its possible. But unfortunately me, it is not possible.

My native language is Bulgarian and sometimes I use Bulgarian grammar with English words. People from India, understand me perfectly.

Finally, there is media what BIOS can read/write/format... but boot not possible. So, not every non-volatile type data storage is acceptable for storing boot sector.

Instead to search where can not be stored boot sector, I was thinking about where can be stored, but I think that there will be no surprising technology, so solution of this problem is not more so important. Before it was, but now I shift my priorities. Thank you for your attention, and I accept sent excuses. Nobody is perfect , including me.

I'm from India and honestly, I have some difficulty understanding what you say.

From Wikipedia,
"The presence of an IBM PC compatible boot loader for x86-CPUs in the boot sector is by convention indicated by a two-byte hexadecimal sequence called the boot sector signature (55h at fixed offset +1FEh and AAh at +1FFh) for sector sizes of 512 bytes or more."

trinopoty wrote:I'm from India and honestly, I have some difficulty understanding what you say.

From Wikipedia,
"The presence of an IBM PC compatible boot loader for x86-CPUs in the boot sector is by convention indicated by a two-byte hexadecimal sequence called the boot sector signature (55h at fixed offset +1FEh and AAh at +1FFh) for sector sizes of 512 bytes or more."

I repeat , it can be typed "or more"
But my BIOS do not boot 1KB sized boot sector with 55h at fixed offset +1FEh and AAh at +1FFh.

So, I have to be stuck with 512 bytes per sector.

Most disks are 512 bytes-per-sector formatted now, other than CDs. If you want to have more than 512 bytes in your boot loader, what I would recommend is the following order of operations:

• Set up your boot loader, and perform any initialisations
  Load the next sector (sector 1, assuming numbers start at 0), straight after the current sector (so 7E00)
  Replace the 55AA with 9090
  Carry on, as though its all one piece of code

This should give you 1kB to work with. If you need any more than this, load in as many as you need, as above (a loop would work).

As for your English, you do need to improve it, but as someone who's learning another language at the moment (Arabic, if anyone's interested), I can sympathize, especially with the point of speaking English with Bulgarian grammar. I'd advise reading as much as you can in English; newspapers, websites (if you can set the language), and especially novels. This should bring you up to speed much faster than people complaining at you on the Internet.

Cheers,
Connor

Hi,

anftr wrote:I put the mark 55 AA till the end of track, because I wasn't sure whether BIOS test bytes at offset 511 or offset (end of sector -1)

In theory, BIOS is meant to load the first sector (regardless of how large it is), then check for the "0x55, 0xAA" signature at offset 511 (regardless of how large the sector was). In practice, this is very non-standard and it's very likely that a lot of BIOSs will have bugs and/or fail to handle it correctly.

anftr wrote:I was hope to demonstrate that its possible. But unfortunately me, it is not possible.

Another idea is to reduce the size of the gap between sectors and have 21 normal 512-byte sectors per track. This does work (Microsoft has even used this for DOS/Windows installation disks), and avoids the need for your own floppy driver code, and gets 1680 KiB of data on the floppy.

Alternatively; you could format different tracks differently. For example, you could format the first track with 21 normal 512-byte sectors, then format all the other tracks with (maybe) something like three 4 KiB sectors per track. In this case BIOS won't have trouble reading the first track, and you could write your own floppy driver code to access data on the other tracks properly; and end up with 1917.5 KiB of data on the floppy. Of course even with your own floppy driver code I wouldn't expect "CD emulating floppy" or "USB emulating floppy" to work at all, and wouldn't expect emulators (Bochs, Qemu, VirtualBox, etc) to work either. I'd also assume the floppy driver would only support the old floppy drive controllers (e.g. and won't support real floppy drives connected via. USB).


Cheers,

Brendan

Blacklight wrote:VolTeK, has anyone ever told you that 90% of your posts are incredibly inane?

Just you today, sweetheart.

I've been on here for years longer then you have, and you consider what you've seen so far from me, 90%.

Elementary math wasn't too kind to you.

VolTeK wrote:

Blacklight wrote:VolTeK, has anyone ever told you that 90% of your posts are incredibly inane?

Just you today, sweetheart.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I've been on here for years longer then you have, and you consider what you've seen so far from me, 90%.

And what have you accomplished in those years? I can summarize it as phases of "new kid", "angry new kid", "no understanding of netiquette", "calls people names when he can't take Combuster's sarcastic but sage advice", "trolling with very little useful content". Sometimes the final three phases overlap.

Elementary math wasn't too kind to you.

Yeah, and it looks like you once spent a page and a half's worth of posts failing to understand (segment * 16) + offset, but that's only partially beside my point.


You know, you said you were going to leave a bit to mature a few times it seems. Doesn't look like that's happened yet.