Hi!
10-Окт-2005 13:35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Devore) wrote to
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Even if I introduce new interface, then it will be useful only for new
>>drivers. It will be useless for all existing drivers.
MD> Wrong. It will be useful for _everything_:
MD> CONFIG.SYS:
MD> ; CHECK386 program returns AL nonzero if 386+ level chip found
MD> %IF CHECK386 DEVICE=C:\WHATEVER\PATH\HIMEM.EXE
MD> %IF CHECK386 DEVICE=EMM386
Why to duplicate checks, which already present in himem and emm386?
MD> ; CHECK286 program returns nonzero if 286-level chip found
MD> %IF CHECK286 DEVICE=FDXMS286
Isn't fdxms286 checks for 286?
MD> ; ISFLASH program detects USB flash driver presence with nonzero return
MD> %IF ISFLASH DEVICE=USBASPI.SYS
Who will write isflash.sys driver?
MD> %IF ISFLASH DEVICE=DI10000DI.SYS
MD> ; ISVIDECD program detects whether CD needs VIDE driver
MD> %IF ISVIDECD DEVICE=VIDE-CDD.SYS
MD> ; otherwise try another generic driver
MD> %IFNOT ISVIDECD DEVICE=OAKCDROM.SYS
Both vide-cdd and oakcdrom are generic IDE drivers and there not need
other drivers, if you already use one of them.
MD> ; if known broken BIOS fails critical operations, load workaround driver
MD> %IF DETFAIL DEVICE=FIXBIOS.SYS
Why not built checks into fixbios, when you will write it?
PS: No, I not see there useful examples.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
