Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!news From: Gabor Kincses <gabor@acm.org> Newsgroups: neosoft.users.freebsd,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Free BSD trouble Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:15:17 -0600 Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison Lines: 29 Message-ID: <32F260E5.59E2B600@acm.org> References: <32EAF919.17A0@neosoft.com> <5cflae$gal@bonkers.taronga.com> <5cpfsk$fqk@uuneo.neosoft.com> <5cq52k$i2o@bonkers.taronga.com> <5crd6v$6tt@uuneo.neosoft.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: f182-107.net.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.5-RELEASE i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:34804 Conrad Sabatier wrote: > > In article <5cq52k$i2o@bonkers.taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > >In article <5cpfsk$fqk@uuneo.neosoft.com>, > >Conrad Sabatier <conrads@neosoft.com> wrote: > >>o <sigh> As usual, the same as with every previous version of FreeBSD I've > >> used (since 2.1.0), still refuses to recognize the same IDE CD-ROM drive > >> that Windows 95 has no problem whatsoever dealing with (thanks to a > >> vendor-supplied driver, of course). > > > >In other words it's not a standard IDE CDROM, or else you wouldn't need a > >vendor-supplied driver. I don't see how that's FreeBSD's problem. > > Frankly, I really don't know. In Win95, there's a little driver or init that > loads before MSCDEX. So apparently, it's not *too* standard. AFAIK, there is the vendor-supplied (?) ATAPI.SYS (in CONFIG.SYS) that needs to come before the MSCDEX in the AUTOEXEC.BAT. That seems to be the standard, looking at 4-5 different systems. I have also tried a lot of different IDE configs (~10-15) w/ 3 IDE drives + a SONY CDU-55E 2x CDROM and took about 2 days before the CDROM was fully recognized and 2.1.5 installed... One can argue that the hardware is cheap or that the software is cheap. Looking at the state of PC hardware I vote for the earlier. -- Gabor Kincses (gabor@acm.org)