[Drugwash]

Thank you for the warm welcome, Dencorso! I missed you all too.

Since I got drowned in a sea of documentation following the links kindly posted throughout this topic, I'll be spending a fair amount of time studying the available information before coming up with a usable version of the BootMaker tool. I also intend to make it translatable so it could be used widely even by non-English speaking people, being able to display labels as they see fit (to avoid issues such as hidden vs before).

So if you don't see me posting here, don't think I'm AWOL. Will keep reading new posts.

[dencorso]

jaclaz, on 30 July 2011 - 04:46 AM, said:

We are going to misunderstand each other if we use different terminology .

To me the filesystem is the WHOLE thing.
You seem like calling "filesystem" what I call "filesystem structures".
I.e. in my view a filesystems spans over the whole volume, and contains:

• filesystems structures (including the ROOT entries)
  
• actual directories and files

You will agree that something that resides outside of itself doesn't sound really "right"

Well, jaclaz, for the sake of agreement and common terminology I'm willing to accept a filesystem is something that can be divided in two parts:

A (i) System Area and a (ii) Data Area

The System Area comprises the Boot Sector, the FATs and the Root Directory (for FAT-12/16),
while the Data Area comprises the actual files, the sub-directories and (just for FAT-32) the Root Directory.

(adapting what's stated in Section 6.1.4 p. 5 of ECMA-107, where that statement refers to what they call "Flexible Disk Cartridge", a.k.a. floppy disk).

I think this isn't the right place for us to philosophize on the ontological question of what a filesystem actually *is*.
That said, I cannot avoid thinking that if one were a file inside the filesystem, the *only* way one can actually access the System Area is by taking the Red Pill.

Now, since we've collected some links to standards already in this thread, I'll add some more, just for the record:
MS FAT (FAT-32 Specification): v. 1.03 (2000) and v. 1.02 (1999); ECMA-107 (FAT 12/16) and ECMA-119 (=ISO 9660).

[Drugwash]

Just couldn't help it... First alpha of BootMaker is so incomplete it makes me ashamed for ever releasing it. So I put a little bit of elbow grease in it and got to a more acceptable version. Please note it's still in the viewer phase and the File system selector is not yet functional. The Save buttons have been temporarily disabled to avoid any misleading. The Code viewer will eventually become an editor (hopefully); for now it doesn't respond to user input, save for the right side where code can be copied from.

Oh and the acronym was wrong in v0.0.0.1: it's BMF, not BFM. Sorry! Now it's fixed. Enjoy!
(and now I'm going to sleep; it's past 6 AM)

Attached File(s)

•  BMF 0.0.0.2.exe (219.54K)
  Number of downloads: 20

[jaclaz]

Drugwash, on 30 July 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

Just couldn't help it... First alpha of BootMaker is so incomplete it makes me ashamed for ever releasing it. So I put a little bit of elbow grease in it and got to a more acceptable version. Please note it's still in the viewer phase and the File system selector is not yet functional. The Save buttons have been temporarily disabled to avoid any misleading. The Code viewer will eventually become an editor (hopefully); for now it doesn't respond to user input, save for the right side where code can be copied from.

Oh and the acronym was wrong in v0.0.0.1: it's BMF, not BFM. Sorry! Now it's fixed. Enjoy!
(and now I'm going to sleep; it's past 6 AM)

NICE work! .

As said it's a good thing that the Filesystem selector doesn't work, since it will (when it will be finished ) seemingly select BOOT CODE, instead.

dencorso, on 30 July 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:

I think this isn't the right place for us to philosophize on the ontological question of what a filesystem actually *is*.

No need to pose ourselves this kind of questions , I am only trying to come to an agreement of some sort to make sure that SAME elements are called with tthe SAME name (or that a Rosetta's Stone of some sort is provided ), or, if you prefer, that other MSFN members that will read this thread or use the little apps/tools will have a less confusing experienced.
You know how I do like people taking the Red pill, but it should be their own choice, not be forced upon them by the lack of clearness in the tools/posts/instructions.

To add to the list of references:
http://www.win.tue.n.../fat/fat-1.html

Quote

Bytes Content
0-2 Jump to bootstrap (E.g. eb 3c 90; on i86: JMP 003E NOP.
One finds either eb xx 90, or e9 xx xx.
The position of the bootstrap varies.)
3-10 OEM name/version (E.g. "IBM 3.3", "IBM 20.0", "MSDOS5.0", "MSWIN4.0".
Various format utilities leave their own name, like "CH-FOR18".
Sometimes just garbage. Microsoft recommends "MSWIN4.1".)
/* BIOS Parameter Block starts here */
11-12 Number of bytes per sector (512)
Must be one of 512, 1024, 2048, 4096.
13 Number of sectors per cluster (1)
Must be one of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.
A cluster should have at most 32768 bytes. In rare cases 65536 is OK.
14-15 Number of reserved sectors (1)
FAT12 and FAT16 use 1. FAT32 uses 32.
16 Number of FAT copies (2)
17-18 Number of root directory entries (224)
0 for FAT32. 512 is recommended for FAT16.
19-20 Total number of sectors in the filesystem (2880)
(in case the partition is not FAT32 and smaller than 32 MB)
21 Media descriptor type (f0: 1.4 MB floppy, f8: hard disk; see below)
22-23 Number of sectors per FAT (9)
0 for FAT32.
24-25 Number of sectors per track (12)
26-27 Number of heads (2, for a double-sided diskette)
28-29 Number of hidden sectors (0)
Hidden sectors are sectors preceding the partition.
/* BIOS Parameter Block ends here */
30-509 Bootstrap
510-511 Signature 55 aa

On that page, the "Media descriptor byte" is interesting.

Quote

IBM defined the media descriptor byte as 11111red, where r is removable, e is eight sectors/track, d is double sided.

It seems like most of the values are/were checked by old versions of DOS, and I remember from here:
http://advancemame.s...akebootfat.html
that the FF or 255 in FreeDOS means "auto-detect" AND that the actual "Drive Type" or "Media Type" needs to be correct.
What shall we do?

jaclaz

P.s.: Attached verion 04 with the above "Media descriptor byte" added tentatively and a couple more fixes.
REMOVED: se a couple posts below for new version

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 01 August 2011 - 06:50 AM

[dencorso]

Note that the quote from www.win.tue.nl must be read with due care. What you quoted is what they call "FAT-12 BPB", which is actually the original BPB. That one contains only the 16-bit number of sectors entry, so it'd be impossible to create any image bigger than 32 MiB (-1 byte) with that one. We already know, in fact this thread is full of attached demontrations, that we can use the Extended BPB (wich they misleadingly call "FAT-16 BPB") with FAT-12, and that's how our bigger floppy images are created. So, this would be the complete description of it (here all offsetes are in decimal and start from 0):

Quote

Bytes Content
0-2 Jump to bootstrap (E.g. eb 3c 90; on i86: JMP 003E NOP.
One finds either eb xx 90, or e9 xx xx.
The position of the bootstrap varies.)
3-10 OEM name/version (E.g. "IBM 3.3", "IBM 20.0", "MSDOS5.0", "MSWIN4.0".
Various format utilities leave their own name, like "CH-FOR18".
Sometimes just garbage. Microsoft recommends "MSWIN4.1".)
/* BIOS Parameter Block starts here */
11-12 Number of bytes per sector (512)
Must be one of 512, 1024, 2048, 4096.
13 Number of sectors per cluster (1)
Must be one of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.
A cluster should have at most 32768 bytes. In rare cases 65536 is OK.
14-15 Number of reserved sectors (1)
FAT12 and FAT16 use 1. FAT32 uses 32.
16 Number of FAT copies (2)
17-18 Number of root directory entries (224)
0 for FAT32. 512 is recommended for FAT16.
19-20 Total number of sectors in the filesystem (2880)
(in case the partition is not FAT32 and smaller than 32 MB)
21 Media descriptor type (f0: 1.4 MB floppy, f8: hard disk; see below)
22-23 Number of sectors per FAT (9)
0 for FAT32.
24-25 Number of sectors per track (12)
26-27 Number of heads (2, for a double-sided diskette)
28-31 Number of hidden sectors (0)
Hidden sectors are sectors preceding the partition.
32-35 Total number of sectors in the filesystem
(in case the total was not given in bytes 19-20)
In fact, for this to be valid, bytes 19-20 *must* be 0 (comment by dencorso)
36 Logical Drive Number (for use with INT 13, e.g. 0 or 0x80)
37 Reserved (Earlier: Current Head, the track containing the Boot Record)
Used by Windows NT: bit 0: need disk check; bit 1: need surface scan
38 Extended signature (0x29)
Indicates that the three following fields are present.
Windows NT recognizes either 0x28 or 0x29.
39-42 Serial number of partition
43-53 Volume label or "NO NAME "
54-61 Filesystem type (E.g. "FAT12 ", "FAT16 ", "FAT ", or all zero.)
/* BIOS Parameter Block ends here */
62-509 Bootstrap
510-511 Signature 55 aa

Of course, the above table is not really a quote, because it represents the merging of two different tables form the source. Also of course, this is also described on the already mentioned MS FAT-32 Specification v. 1.03 (2000), so what is most interesting are the additonal comments or details.

jaclaz, on 31 July 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

On that page, the "Media descriptor byte" is interesting.

Quote

IBM defined the media descriptor byte as 11111red, where r is removable, e is eight sectors/track, d is double sided.

It seems like most of the values are/were checked by old versions of DOS, and I remember from here:
http://advancemame.s...akebootfat.html
that the FF or 255 in FreeDOS means "auto-detect" AND that the actual "Drive Type" or "Media Type" needs to be correct.
What shall we do?

I don't think you've got that right: to me it seems to refer to byte 0x24 = 36 which is the BIOS drive. Not the Media Type Byte. Read it again carefully:

Quote

-E, --drive DRIVE
Set the BIOS drive to setup in the FAT boot sector. Generally this value is ignored by boot sectors, with the exception of the FAT12 and FAT16 FreeDOS boot sectors that require the correct value or the value 255 to force auto detection.

Here are two other quite interesting references: SuperVinx (a great complement to the Starman's Pages) and...
J. de Boyne Pollard's FGA on OEM Names (which I'm sure you know, but not everybody is familiar with).

[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 31 July 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

I don't think you've got that right: to me it seems to refer to byte 0x24 = 36 which is the BIOS drive. Not the Media Type Byte. Read it again carefully:

Yes, most probably you are right, my memory is not as good as it was , I'll check and fix.

But the main issue I was trying to point out is that no "modern" floppy sizes use anything different from 240 and all hard disk partition/volumes use 248, so I was wondering if in the drop-down list any of the older values was to be included (as it is in current/latest) or if those "other values" should ONLY be coupled to the corresponding "oldish/smallish" floppy formats (and disappear from the drop down list used when "FREE" is selected).

The quote from:
http://www.win.tue.n.../fat/fat-1.html
Was only to highlight (as it has been done :whisting:) TWO things:

Quote

Hidden sectors are sectors preceding the partition.

Quote

Bootstrap

still within my "obsession" to try calling things with their names AND agree on a common terminology.

For the record, the J De Boyne Pollard's page you mentioned:
http://homepage.ntlw...name-field.html
(guess why the suggested OEM string in the .xls is "IBM 2.0" ) are complemented by these other onee:
http://homepage.ntlw...eter-block.html
http://homepage.ntlw...ystem-type.html
http://homepage.ntlw...fat-widths.html

These also contain some bits of info that may come of use.

The existence of 0x28 as an "alternative" to 0x29 is something I never suspected

And this is aso fun/interesting:
http://homepage.ntlw...sion-7-bpb.html

jaclaz

P.S.: Re: Disk number (or "Drive Number" (usual confusion on names.
You are of course right , it's there that the 255 gets a meaning in FreeDOS.
The thingy should be the same as the FreeDOS SYS parameter:
http://www.freedos.org/kernel/sys.txt

Quote

/B btdrv

Sets the BIOS boot drive # (in hex) stored within the boot sector.

So, we do know (from here and there ) that 0 (0x00) means "A:" (or first floppy drive) and that 128 (0x80) means "C:" (or first hard disk).
But I cannot find - if not on makebootfat related things - any reference to the 255 as autodetect in FreeDOS.
There is this thread here:
http://osdir.com/ml/...9/msg00057.html
that seems to suggest that the 0xFF is a bad idea anyway, but cannot understand if the good guys resolved to leave it or remove it alltogether...

Attachment removed, see a few posts below for version 06.

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 05 August 2011 - 11:55 AM

[dencorso]

jaclaz, on 01 August 2011 - 02:29 AM, said:

But the main issue I was trying to point out is that no "modern" floppy sizes use anything different from 240 and all hard disk partition/volumes use 248, so I was wondering if in the drop-down list any of the older values was to be included (as it is in current/latest) or if those "other values" should ONLY be coupled to the corresponding "oldish/smallish" floppy formats (and disappear from the drop down list used when "FREE" is selected).

The Table below is quoted from Thom Hogan's "The Programmer's PC Sourcebook", 2nd. ed., Microsoft Press, 1991 (ISBN 1-55615-321-X) Section 2, p. 26.

 MediumTypeByte.GIF (66.84K)
Number of downloads: 19
IMO, it's the most autoritative offical source for this particular info. So I think we sould, for our purposes, adopt it as the standard reference, and use the media types as described in it, and solely for those formats. In all other cases I do favor 0xF8 for HDD and 0xF0 for all formats >= "1.44 MB" (= 1440 kiB, that is 1.41 MiB, unformatted and 1.39 MiB formatted), which, BTW, is the common pratice, so, by now, a de-facto standard.

BTW, attached is a list of all the formats I've ever heard about, for 5.25" and 3.5" floppies, just for the record.

Attached File(s)

•  FDFORLST.7z (763bytes)
  Number of downloads: 23

[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 02 August 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

BTW, attached is a list of all the formats I've ever heard about, for 5.25" and 3.5" floppies, just for the record.

Thanks.
They contain what I needed, "original" ROOT directory entries for the various formats.
I'll check and add this info.

BTW, some (not so loosely connected) experiment:
http://reboot.pro/15123/

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 03 August 2011 - 02:29 AM

[rloew]

dencorso, on 04 August 2011 - 10:48 PM, said:

Some BIOSes (and the one for the Asus A7V600-X is a case-in-point) when set to boot an "USB ZipDisk" will boot a pendrive having an MBR and exactly one partition, regardless of if that partition is active or not, as A: (and, of course, will do so also with a real USB ZipDisk). After the device is booted all sectors preceeding the Partition Boot Record (PBR = the Boot Sector of the given Partition) will be unaccessible. It seems that those BIOSes use the MBR to locate the PBR and then will set it as LBA 0, thus rendering the preceeding sectors unavailable.

So this creates problems to use how a device mounts at boot as a criterion to define floppy-like and HDD-like. I prefer the presence of the MBR makes a device HDD-like and its absence makes it floppy-like, regardless of the way it can boot, for the above reason.

That usage does not conflict with my interpretation of Floppy-Like. There will still be limitations on usage such as CHS only access. Unmodified DOS will not support LBA on an A: or B: Drive.
I will withdraw the following comment as you have disproven it.

Quote

I will agree that a Drive that uses a MBR is HD-Like because it cannot be Mounted as A: or B:.

Your example makes the presence or absence of the MBR even less important.

[rloew]

Getting a bit off-topic. These posts belong in the Superfloppy and/or LS-120 threads.

[dencorso]

I've moved the posts I thought would really be best in the superfloppy thread. Should I move more posts? PM me your comments, please. This post and the one above it are candidates for deletion as soon as we are all agreed upon this latest split/merge operation.

[rloew]

jaclaz, on 18 July 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

rloew, on 17 July 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

Is there any interest in them, to justify packaging them?

Who knows?

My remark was more a "generic" one, you have something in your closet, you may be willing to sell it, but until you don't take it out of the closet and put it on display on your desk, under a big "for sale" sign you have 100% possibilities (read as "certainty") that noone will ever buy it, or the other way round 0% probabilities of ever selling it.

Once you have it in plain view on the desk it is possible that someone is interested to it, you will have n% probabilities that someone will buy it, and no matter how little n will be it will always verify the n>=0 condition, with a chance of also verifying the n>0 one.

jaclaz

I have now posted a Demo and Manuals for my CDTOOLS Package on my Website.

Incidentally N was =1 weeks before I posted my CDTOOLS Package.

[rloew]

I have added code to my 23GB Bootable Floppy Emulation BD-RE to support Writing. The Disk now can run DOS and be loaded or edited using standard utilities. Software can be run that needs to self-modify or save data.

[rloew]

I have completed two versions of my Bootable Read/Write Emulators for DVD+RW and BD-RE.

The first emulates a Floppy Drive and supports the full size of the Disk. It can be formatted and used like a large Floppy.

The second emulates a Hard Drive and can be Partitioned and Formatted using standard tools.

[pengo]

Can someone simplify the steps in making a superfloppy (ie larger than 1.44mb/2.88mb) boot image? I've tried using the boot image files off the bcdw site but they don't boot (test with a msdos vm in vmware with the floppy using the image file and booting off the floppy). I've also gone thru this thread and tried that 32mb boot floppy image and it doesn't work. Looks like its missing a bootsector? Tho is prolly something I'm doing wrong.. I opened it up in WinImage and dumped my dos program and files into it and resaved it.. tried to boot it in vmware and had no success

I've been trawling the net and threads and everything out there is a bit beyond me. Or maybe I'm just losing my patience !! ugh.

All I want to do is boot up off a raw image file with a appropiate bootsector, that allows it to boot dos and then run a dos program contained within the image file. The total payload is about 12 mb.

The best I've been able to do is make a bootable iso using eltorito but the boot image used uses fdd emulation, so it doesn't really work. And it seems an impossibility to try and find simple steps in making a "no emulation" boot image for use on a iso file to boot it.

I've tried grub4dos but haven't gotten far with that either... sorry if this is a bit offtopic but i'm getting desperate now!!

This post has been edited by pengo: 09 November 2011 - 10:33 PM

[rloew]

pengo, on 09 November 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

Can someone simplify the steps in making a superfloppy (ie larger than 1.44mb/2.88mb) boot image? I've tried using the boot image files off the bcdw site but they don't boot (test with a msdos vm in vmware with the floppy using the image file and booting off the floppy). I've also gone thru this thread and tried that 32mb boot floppy image and it doesn't work. Looks like its missing a bootsector? Tho is prolly something I'm doing wrong.. I opened it up in WinImage and dumped my dos program and files into it and resaved it.. tried to boot it in vmware and had no success

I've been trawling the net and threads and everything out there is a bit beyond me. Or maybe I'm just losing my patience !! ugh.

All I want to do is boot up off a raw image file with a appropiate bootsector, that allows it to boot dos and then run a dos program contained within the image file. The total payload is about 12 mb.

The best I've been able to do is make a bootable iso using eltorito but the boot image used uses fdd emulation, so it doesn't really work. And it seems an impossibility to try and find simple steps in making a "no emulation" boot image for use on a iso file to boot it.

I've tried grub4dos but haven't gotten far with that either... sorry if this is a bit offtopic but i'm getting desperate now!!

The bootable CD Images described in this thread are designed to be used with El Torito Floppy Emulation. No Emulation mode requires a custom bootstrap to load code. I have written some DDOs that use this mode.

[jaclaz]

pengo, on 09 November 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

Looks like its missing a bootsector? Tho is prolly something I'm doing wrong.. I opened it up in WinImage and dumped my dos program and files into it and resaved it.. tried to boot it in vmware and had no success

Try using Winimage to add one to it (possibly the proper one for the DOS that you are using. (and that you didn't specify yet).

BUT I cannot say if VMware can actually boot from a "fantasy" super-floppy.
To test the image you might need to use grub4dos or memdisk to map the floppy image (saved on hard disk or vritual hard disk) inside the VM.

BTW I also replied on the "original" thread you started on 911CD:
http://www.911cd.net...topic=24618&hl=

For the record, it is perfectly normal that when you "enter the game" you will be lost initially.
The advice is:
DO NOT PANIC!
(assume the above in large friendly letters)
You will see that with a little of patience you will get what you want.

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 10 November 2011 - 03:05 AM

[jaclaz]

Cross-posting to a new build of mkisofs :
http://cdob.reboot.pro/
http://cdob.reboot.p...d.ru-mkisofs.7z
created by cdob with - among some others - the ability to use "0x3 Floppy images up to 1024 cylinders, ie. 36 Mb", see also:
http://www.msfn.org/...et-of-floppies/

http://reboot.pro/to...otdvd/?p=169473

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 17 March 2013 - 06:50 AM

[dencorso]

cdob rocks!
Thanks for sharing the good news: you do rock, too!

And to be fair, RLoew rocks, too: he was the one that discovered/invented the 36 MiB floppy!

[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 18 March 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

And to be fair, RLoew rocks, too: he was the one that discovered/invented the 36 MiB floppy!

Maybe yes, maybe no. (he does "rock", but possibly not for this specific item)
To be fair:
http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__946547
cdob posted - passing by - this info earlier, but it went unnoticed/wasn't followed (most probably at the time "we" weren't ready for it ).

The main blame (of not noticing it) is of course to be put on Multibooter (and to some extents to myself), but he also has the merit (of having re-vamped the topic), and I claim that without my "torturing" RLoew (and cdob) we wouldn't have had the matter fully exposed as we have it now.

All in all, I would say that the whole thing is a "product of the community" in the best sense of it, everyone contributed to it, proportionally to their capabilities and inclinations .

jaclaz