Boot.ini question

[Folkert Rienstra]

You didn't read my message at all, or if you did, you didn't get it. I
wrote "boot order (the term as used by you)", which should tell you what
you need to know.

You can read my message again and (mentally) substitute "boot order" with
"hard drive boot order", because that's obviously what I was writing about.
We didn't talk about CD-ROMs, did we?


I did of course /not/ talk about booting from anything but hard drives --
which anybody (or maybe not) could find out by reading my message.

Fact is
Nope.

that there are disks with perfectly valid rdisk numbers in
many systems that can't be booted by their controllers

That's nonsense.
Disks aren't booted by their controllers, they are booted by
the Mainboard BIOS.
If some disks can't be booted then that's because the MoBo
bios doesn't allow it. It's not the controller BIOS fault.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Which is my point. It is the BIOS that determines the hard
drive boot order and

that order is independent of the controller.

But not of the controllers bios setup utility, *if* it has one.
That too will affect the MoBo BIOS boot order.

And in the Phoenix BIOS, the BIOS takes> the above list and makes
it the *default* hard drive boot order if the user does not reset it.

Not if the controllers bios setup utility changes it.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

We'll see,

.... your usual lying and cheating ...

as always.

Yup, you got that right.

Pity you can still boot off drives that dont get seen by
the bios with an appropriate entry in the boot.ini file.
Lie.


If you couldnt,

You can't.

it wouldnt be possible to bypass the bios limitation with a particular dri-
ve by not listing it in the bios drive table and letting Win find it anyway.

... which only works for secondary drives that fail the MoBo BIOS and
with Windows already running (using a driver).
That obviously isn't the case here when NTLDR runs and has yet to
start Windows, which is on a drive that it can't get to. Catch 22.

 

[Rod Speed]

... your usual lying and cheating ...

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Yup, you got that right.

Lie.

Fact. Boot in the sense of being able to boot an NT/2K/XP OS
off one of those drives with NTLDR etc coming off a drive which
the bios can boot.

You can't.

Fraid so.

.. which only works for secondary drives that fail the MoBo
BIOS and with Windows already running (using a driver).

Wrong, as always.

That obviously isn't the case here when NTLDR runs and has
yet to start Windows, which is on a drive that it can't get to.

It doesnt have to have a driver loaded to get to it.

Just not be visible to the BIOS, stupid.

Catch 22.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland, child.

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Disks aren't booted by their controllers, they are booted by the
Mainboard BIOS. If some disks can't be booted then that's because the
MoBo bios doesn't allow it. It's not the controller BIOS fault.

Ok... dunno, but maybe not relevant for my point.

Just as a reminder: the whole discussion started when Timothy claimed that
the rdisk number is the position in the "hard drive boot order", as he
calls it.

How would you then calculate the rdisk number out of the "hard drive boot
order" for disks that can't be booted (independently of why exactly that
is)? Do they appear in the "hard drive boot order" even though they can't
be booted? If not, how would one get their rdisk number with Timothy's
method?

Gerhard

 

[craigm]

Folkert Rienstra wrote:




Ok... dunno, but maybe not relevant for my point.

Just as a reminder: the whole discussion started when Timothy claimed that
the rdisk number is the position in the "hard drive boot order", as he
calls it.

How would you then calculate the rdisk number out of the "hard drive boot
order" for disks that can't be booted (independently of why exactly that
is)? Do they appear in the "hard drive boot order" even though they can't
be booted? If not, how would one get their rdisk number with Timothy's
method?

Gerhard

rdisk() number is the ordinal of the drive on the specific controller.
You can search Microsoft for this info.

The BIOS boot disk order is the order the drives are scanned for a
bootable (active) partition.

Once the BIOS has loaded code from the drive found in the boot order and
passes control to that code, it is done with its role in the boot
process. (That drive would have to have an active partition with
appropriate code on it.)

If that code that was loaded is a boot manager (grub, lilo, ntldr, or
whatever), it (the code) can then load other code from from the same
partition, or another partition on on a different drive.

That code can be an operating system, or another boot loader.

Once code for an operating system is loaded into memory and starts
execution, then the loading of the operating system can complete.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

How would you then calculate the rdisk number out of the
"hard drive boot order" for disks that can't be booted?

"rdisk" is a parameter with meaning only to ntldr in the
selection of hard drives for booting. Why would someone
want the "rdisk" value for hard drives that can't be booted,
i.e. drives that ntldr can't boot? You've said that devices
other than hard drives can be booted with ntldr, but what
does that have to do with "rdisk"? It appears that you're
trying to use "rdisk" where it has no meaning and where
it wasn't meant to be used.

Why not add to this discussion in a positive way and
detail for us what "rdisk" means in YOUR system, and
identify your system for us, including the BIOS. I've
already given you an example of what I mean.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

rdisk() number is the ordinal of the drive on the specific controller.
You can search Microsoft for this info.

Maybe in YOUR system. In MY system, "rdisk()" is the
position in the hard drive boot order. The information starts
out as the controller's ordinals, and the BIOS's initial *default*
meaning of rdisk is just that order, but in the Phoenix BIOS
that order may be reset via keyboard input. Phoenix Technol-
ogies has given an extra degree of control to the user.

The BIOS boot disk order is the order the drives are scanned
for a bootable (active) partition.

No, the "boot disk order" you refer to (what I call the "hard
drive boot order") is the order the drives are scanned for a
Master Boot Record. When a drive with a valid MBR is found,
the BIOS passes control to that drive's MBR logic - which passes
control the "active" partition's boot sector. That boot sector logic
then looks for the partition's ntldr file and passes control to ntldr.
When ntldr starts up, it has the information necessary to find
rdisk(0), rdisk(1), rdisk(2), etc. that are referred to in boot.ini .
I suspect that it gets it by accessing information that was set by
the BIOS in a *location* that was specified by Microsoft.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

craigm wrote

Maybe in YOUR system.

No maybe about it. There's a reason that no MS documentation
on the ARCpath naming convention even mentions the boot order.

In MY system, "rdisk()" is the position in the hard drive boot order.

Your problem.

The information starts out as the controller's ordinals, and the BIOS's
initial *default* meaning of rdisk is just that order, but in the
Phoenix BIOS that order may be reset via keyboard input.

As it can with most modern bios. Few are stupid enough to
have the rdisk() param reflect the boot order, for one very
very simple reason, that doesnt allow the rdisk() param to
refer to a drive that isnt in the boot order list for whatever
reason. And that is completely ****ed when the whole point
of NTLDR is to allow booting from partitions and drives that
the bios cannot have in the boot list.

Phoenix Technologies has given an extra degree of control to the user.

And some ****wit has completely ****ed the use of the rdisk()
param. You havent established whether that is Phoenix or Dell.

Yep.

the "boot disk order" you refer to (what I call the "hard drive boot
order") is the order the drives are scanned for a Master Boot Record.

You're both saying the same thing in different words.

Obviously the active partition is in the MBR
except with simpler bootable drives like floppys.

When a drive with a valid MBR is found, the BIOS passes control to that
drive's MBR logic

Wrong again with the active partition.

- which passes control the "active" partition's boot sector.

Not with simpler bootable drives like floppys and CDs.

That boot sector logic then looks for the partition's ntldr file and
passes control to ntldr.

Not when there is no ntldr present it doesnt. It can still boot that fine.

When ntldr starts up, it has the information necessary to find rdisk(0),
rdisk(1), rdisk(2), etc. that are referred to in boot.ini .

And only with that completely ****ed implementation
on YOUR system does that have anything what so
ever to do with the bios boot list.

I suspect that it gets it by accessing information that was set by the
BIOS in a *location* that was specified by Microsoft.

More fool you. It doesnt.

 

[Rod Speed]

Gerhard Fiedler wrote

"rdisk" is a parameter with meaning only to ntldr in the selection of
hard drives for booting.

Which was introduced to allow the booting of NT
from drives which arent even in the bios boot order
list, before bios even HAD a boot order list at all.

Why would someone want the "rdisk" value for hard drives that can't be
booted,

Plenty of reasons for wanting an rdisk() value
for a drive that isnt even in the bios boot list,
and when there isnt even a bios boot list at all.

That was the WHOLE POINT of ntldr, stupid.

i.e. drives that ntldr can't boot?

He didnt say that.

You've said that devices other than hard drives can be booted with ntldr,
but what does that have to do with "rdisk"?

rdisk() was always the drive enumeration on the controller.

It appears that you're trying to use "rdisk" where it has no meaning and
where it wasn't meant to be used.

You need to get your appears machinery seen to.

Why not add to this discussion in a positive way and
detail for us what "rdisk" means in YOUR system,

Its perfectly adequately documented in
the MS documentation and by others too.

NOT ONE even mentions the bios boot list.

and identify your system for us, including the BIOS.

No need, we dont have completely ****ed implementation.

Only you do.

I've already given you an example of what I mean.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

You cant even manage to work out for yourself what
the whole point of the ntldr system was from the start.

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

"rdisk" is a parameter with meaning only to ntldr in the selection of
hard drives for booting.

Correct in that rdisk in boot.ini has meaning only to ntldr. Wrong in the
use of "booting": it's meaning is the selection of a hard drive for
starting Windows.

Why would someone want the "rdisk" value for hard drives that can't be
booted, i.e. drives that ntldr can't boot?

You don't understand the difference between "booting" and "starting
Windows".

"Booting" is when the BIOS loads ntldr into memory and starts it.

"Starting Windows" is after ntldr reads boot.ini, optionally displays the
selection menu and starts Windows from the controller, drive, partition and
directory indicated by the chosen entry. This controller, drive and
partition does not have to be bootable by the BIOS.

One of the purposes is to allow selection of an extended partition or a
drive that the BIOS can't boot to start Windows.

You've said that devices other than hard drives can be booted with
ntldr,

Can you cite me on that? I've never written anything like that. I wrote
that Windows can be started from disks that can't be booted from.

Gerhard

 

[Eric Gisin]

Can you cite me on that? I've never written anything like that. I wrote
that Windows can be started from disks that can't be booted from.

There are other ARC paths in ntldr that are not documented:

eisa(0)disk(0)fdisk(1)
scsi(%d)disk(%d)fdisk(%d)
scsi(%d)disk(%d)rdisk(%d)
scsi(%d)cdrom(%d)fdisk(%d)

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Correct in that rdisk in boot.ini has meaning only to ntldr. Wrong
in the use of "booting": it's meaning is the selection of a hard
drive for starting Windows.



You don't understand the difference between "booting" and "starting
Windows".

"Booting" is when the BIOS loads ntldr into memory and starts it.

"Starting Windows" is after ntldr reads boot.ini, optionally displays the
selection menu and starts Windows from the controller, drive, partition and
directory indicated by the chosen entry. This controller, drive and
partition does not have to be bootable by the BIOS.

One of the purposes is to allow selection of an extended partition or a
drive that the BIOS can't boot to start Windows.

You seem to confuse "disk" and "drive". I use the term "hard drive"
to refer to the physical device, "Local Disk" to refer to a Primary
partition, and "logical drive" to refer to a sections within an Extended
partition. In the selection of a drive for booting, rdisk() does select
the physical hard drive. It is partition() that selects which Primary
partition (or Logical Drive within an Extended partition) to load the
OS from. Ntldr uses partition() to find the Primary partition (or
logical drive within an Extended partition) to access the Windows
folder (which defaults to "WINDOWS" during OS installation").
It's not generally known that ntldr can load Windows from within an
Extended partition, but it can, and I've checked in on my own Dell
PC. The value of "m" in partition(m) in the case of a logical drive
seems to progress through the Primary partitions on the hard drive,
then progress through the logical drives in the Extended partitions,
so the value of "m" to use for logical drives may take a bit of
experimentation.

As for the difference between "boot" and "load" and "start",
that is a very gray area in the IT vocabulary. Ntldr is frequently
called a "boot loader" and "boot manager", and it *is* loaded
by the boot sector which was loaded by the MBR which was
loaded by the BIOS, but whether ntldr is a "booter" or a "loader"
would depend on whether there is a load process within Windows
which takes over to load Windows, and few people seem to
know that, and fewer seem to care. But all that is important in
*this* discussion is that "rdisk()" designates the physical hard
drive, and "partition()" designates the Local Disk (or logical drive
in the case of an Extended partition) on that physical hard drive
where the Windows folder may be found.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Few are stupid enough to
have the rdisk() param reflect the boot order, for one very
very simple reason, that doesnt allow the rdisk() param to
refer to a drive that isnt in the boot order list for whatever
reason. And that is completely ****ed when the whole point
of NTLDR is to allow booting from partitions and drives that
the bios cannot have in the boot list.

That is complete gibberish, sock puppet. Why would one
use rdisk(), a parameter only understood by ntldr for the
purpose of loading from hard drives, to refer to a hard drive
that isn't on the "boot list" as you call it? It's time you stopped
your attempts at obfuscation and disinformation and went
back on the shelf.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Which was introduced to allow the booting of NT
from drives which arent even in the bios boot order
list, before bios even HAD a boot order list at all.


Plenty of reasons for wanting an rdisk() value
for a drive that isnt even in the bios boot list,
and when there isnt even a bios boot list at all.

Name one. And why would anyone want to use rdisk in
anything but boot.ini where it's placed for ntldr to use and
only ntldr can understand in loading from hard drives?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

That is complete gibberish, sock puppet.

Lying, as always.

Why would one use rdisk(), a parameter only understood by ntldr for the
purpose of loading from hard drives, to refer to a hard drive that isn't
on the "boot list" as you call it?

Because the whole point of the ntldr was to allow
a member of the NT/2K/XP family to be booted
from a drive or partition that the bios couldnt boot.

It's time you stopped your attempts at obfuscation and disinformation and
went back on the shelf.

Its always been time for you to go and **** yourself,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist/liar.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Name one.

Most of the bios at the time that the ntldr system was introduced
DIDNT EVEN HAVE A HARD DRIVE BOOT ORDER LIST IN THE
BIOS. Most of them only allowed a boot from the C drive to be
specified as an alternative to the floppy and cdrom drives.

And why would anyone want to use rdisk in anything but boot.ini where
it's placed for ntldr to use and
only ntldr can understand in loading from hard drives?

Never said anyone would.

Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now.

 

[Rod Speed]

Gerhard Fiedler wrote

You seem to confuse "disk" and "drive".

Nope, you do.

I use the term "hard drive" to refer to the physical device, "Local Disk"
to refer to a Primary partition, and "logical drive" to refer to a
sections within an Extended partition.

Your problem. That isnt universally used terminology.

In the selection of a drive for booting, rdisk() does select the physical
hard drive. It is partition() that selects which Primary partition (or
Logical Drive within an Extended
partition) to load the OS from. Ntldr uses partition() to find the
Primary partition (or logical drive within an Extended partition) to
access the Windows folder (which defaults to "WINDOWS" during OS
installation").

None of that has any relevance what so ever to what
isbeing discussed, the need for a rdisk() number FOR
DRIVES WHICH ARENT IN THE BOOT ORDER LIST.

It's not generally known that ntldr can load Windows from within an
Extended partition, but it can,

He clearly said it can.

and I've checked in on my own Dell PC.

Whoopy do.

The value of "m" in partition(m) in the case of a logical drive seems to
progress through the Primary partitions on the hard drive, then progress
through the logical drives in the Extended partitions, so the value of
"m" to use for logical drives may take a bit of experimentation.

And when that particular abortion of a bios makes a
complete hash of the rdisk() param, it doesnt really
matter what it does with the partition() param, what
matters is what the MS documentation says it should mean.

As for the difference between "boot" and "load" and "start", that is a
very gray area in the IT vocabulary.

Your 'disk' and 'drive' in spades.

Ntldr is frequently called a "boot loader" and "boot manager", and it
*is* loaded by the boot sector which was loaded by the MBR which was
loaded by the BIOS, but whether ntldr is a "booter" or a "loader" would
depend on whether there is a load process within Windows which takes over
to load Windows, and few people seem to know that, and fewer seem to
care.

Has no relevance to what the rdisk() param should refer to.

But all that is important in *this* discussion is that "rdisk()"
designates the physical hard drive,

BUT NOT THE ENTRY IN THE BOOT ORDER LIST
OR EVEN THE HARD DRIVE BOOT ORDER LIST.

and "partition()" designates the Local Disk

Silly terminology.

(or logical drive in the case of an Extended partition) on that physical
hard drive where the Windows folder may be found.

Irrelevant to what the rdisk() parameter refers to.

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

You seem to confuse "disk" and "drive". I use the term "hard drive" to
refer to the physical device, "Local Disk" to refer to a Primary
partition, and "logical drive" to refer to a sections within an Extended
partition.

Fine with me, but doesn't matter. Just translate my terminology to yours (I
call a disk a disk and a partition a partition, but that's just me

Since at this point neither Windows nor any kind of DOS has been loaded,
there are not yet any logical disks or drives; they only exist within the
context of an OS, otherwise they are simple partitions. That's why it
doesn't make a lot of sense talking about them in the context of this
thread. (You can't tell whether a partition will be a logical drive within
an OS or not without running the OS or analyzing its configuration -- if
it's not being mounted, it stays just that, a partition, without becoming a
logical drive.)

As for the difference between "boot" and "load" and "start", that is a
very gray area in the IT vocabulary.

The words by themselves don't have a clear meaning. That's why I gave above
the meaning I am using. This should make it clear what I am talking about.
Rather than just whining about my terminology, substitute it for your own
(mentally) and read the /meaning/ of the text. It in fact doesn't matter
whether you use boot, start, load or whatever -- as long as you define what
you mean and use it consistently. Which I did -- but you didn't, and that's
in part your problem. You didn't say what you use for the two completely
different processes: the one that gets ntldr into memory and run, and the
other that gets Windows into memory and run.

Since we were talking about the boot process as related to ntldr and
boot.ini, I found it appropriate to use Microsoft's terminology. But you
can use your own, too -- just make sure it is consistent.

Ntldr is frequently called a "boot loader" and "boot manager", and it
*is* loaded by the boot sector which was loaded by the MBR which was
loaded by the BIOS, but whether ntldr is a "booter" or a "loader" would
depend on whether there is a load process within Windows which takes
over to load Windows, and few people seem to know that, and fewer seem
to care.

ntldr gets read from disk, loaded into memory and then run by the BIOS.
Since you seem to object to the common term "booting" for this, I'll call
this for the rest of the discussion "loading ntldr". Since ntldr gets
loaded by the BIOS, it only can be loaded by the BIOS from drives the BIOS
can boot from (sorry for this confusing term <g>, but that's the one you
were using). This would be the drives in the BIOS's "hard drive boot order"
list.

ntldr then loads Windows into memory and starts it. Since you seem to
object to the common term "starting Windows" for this, let's call this for
the rest of the discussion "loading Windows". ntldr may be able to load
Windows from drives the BIOS can't boot from (that is, it can't load ntldr
from them). Whether ntldr can load Windows from a drive has nothing to do
with whether the BIOS can load ntldr from that drive. This are two
different processes -- one is controlled by the BIOS, the other is
controlled by ntldr.

According to you, these drives wouldn't have an rdisk number (because they
don't appear in the BIOS "hard drive boot order" list, because the BIOS
can't boot -- excuse me! -- load ntldr from them). Yet they do have an
rdisk number, because ntldr can load Windows from them.

Is this so difficult to understand? What's your problem?

Gerhard

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Ok... dunno, but maybe not relevant for my point.

I believe that the 'dunno' is very relevant in determining whether
you have a point (or not).