Professional Web Applications Themes

How to boot a "copied" (9.1) System Folder? - Mac Portable

In article <0001HW.BB8333CE00093FE9102510B0news.individual.n et>, DaveC <dave-usenet3016mailblocks.com> wrote: > Certain ("new world") Macintosh computers do not have a ROM chip on-board, > but instead have the ROM code loaded in at boot time. Incorrect. All Macs have a ROM on the main logic board. Without it, the CPU wouldn't know how to do a damned thing -- it couldn't read anything from the hard drive, it couldn't process keystrokes, it couldn't draw things on the screen, it couldn't even ask for a boot disk. All it could do is sit there wasting electricity. It needs a ROM with enough code to ...

  1. #21

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article <0001HW.BB8333CE00093FE9102510B0news.individual.n et>,
    DaveC <dave-usenet3016mailblocks.com> wrote:
    > Certain ("new world") Macintosh computers do not have a ROM chip on-board,
    > but instead have the ROM code loaded in at boot time.
    Incorrect. All Macs have a ROM on the main logic board. Without it,
    the CPU wouldn't know how to do a damned thing -- it couldn't read
    anything from the hard drive, it couldn't process keystrokes, it
    couldn't draw things on the screen, it couldn't even ask for a boot
    disk. All it could do is sit there wasting electricity. It needs a ROM
    with enough code to tell it how to look for a boot disk and read the
    boot sector.

    The misleadingly-named "ROM" file on the hard disk just overrides the
    real ROM *after* the computer has booted up enough to be able to read
    the file.

    > Now, why the installer CD (operated from my desktop Mac via Target
    > Disk Mode) wouldn't install the ROM file I can't figure out. When
    > creating an external boot disk that should be able to boot *any* Mac,
    > this file -- to my mind -- shouild be included.
    Well, yes, it should include that file if you *tell* it that you want
    the disk to be bootable on any Mac. Just because a disk is external,
    doesn't necessarily mean the owner wants to use it on other Macs.
    Wayne C. Morris Guest

  2. #22

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article <0001HW.BB8429930042FDF7102510B0news.individual.n et>,
    DaveC <dave-usenet3016mailblocks.com> wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:03:30 -0700, Wayne C. Morris wrote
    > (in message <wayne.morris-E15A65.13032909092003shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>):
    >
    > > Well, yes, it should include that file if you *tell* it that you want
    > > the disk to be bootable on any Mac. Just because a disk is external,
    > > doesn't necessarily mean the owner wants to use it on other Macs.
    >
    > OK, let's pick nits!
    >
    > The installer has no way to specify that the drive I'm installing on is to be
    > used on *any number* of computers,
    Really? I haven't paid a whole lot of attention recently, but I have a
    distinct memory that Apple's OS installers for years let you specify
    either "this machine" or "any machine." That would count as a number in
    my book. Is that option no longer present?
    > and therfore *must* include the Mac OS ROM file.
    Gregory Weston Guest

  3. #23

    Default Re: How to boot a "copied" (9.1) System Folder?

    > On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:51:14 +0100, DaveC wrote:
    >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 7:57:36 -0700, Karl von Laudermann wrote:
    >
    >> IIRC, you can bless a System folder by moving the Finder app out of it,
    >> and then putting it back in.
    >
    > I did this. No joy.
    Have you tried updating the disk driver with Drive Setup, and then setting
    the drive to boot from in the Startup Disk control panel?

    If it still won't boot up, then you may have to reformat in OS 9, and
    reinstall from CD. I hope you've done a backup.
    --
    Regards,
    Micheal Hutchison
    Email: [email]MadMikegraphixmad.plus.com[/email]
    Mac-Troubleshooter+OE FAQ: [url]www.graphixmad.plus.com[/url]

    Mike Hutchison Guest

  4. #24

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morristhis.is.invalid> writes:
    >
    > Incorrect. All Macs have a ROM on the main logic board. Without
    > it, the CPU wouldn't know how to do a damned thing -- it couldn't
    > read anything from the hard drive, it couldn't process keystrokes,
    > it couldn't draw things on the screen, it couldn't even ask for a
    > boot disk. All it could do is sit there wasting electricity. It
    > needs a ROM with enough code to tell it how to look for a boot disk
    > and read the boot sector.
    >
    > The misleadingly-named "ROM" file on the hard disk just overrides
    > the real ROM *after* the computer has booted up enough to be able to
    > read the file.
    Partially correct.

    Old Macs (going all the way back to the 128) had a large library of
    "toolbox" routines in ROM. These routines handled all sorts of stuff
    that we tend to associate with operating system library functions
    today. Over the years, the contents of this ROM got bigger and
    bigger, as more and more features were incorporated into the toolbox.

    The New World architecture eliminates all of this, reducing the ROM
    back down to just the code necessary to boot the OS, and other
    boot-time features (like the OpenFirmware password code). The rest
    of the toolbox was moved into the "ROM" file as part of the OS.

    The name is actually pretty accurate - that file contains code that
    used to be stored in ROM under the older architectures.

    -- David
    David C. Guest

  5. #25

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVECAPSattbi.com> writes:
    >>
    >> The installer has no way to specify that the drive I'm installing
    >> on is to be used on *any number* of computers,
    >
    > Really? I haven't paid a whole lot of attention recently, but I have
    > a distinct memory that Apple's OS installers for years let you
    > specify either "this machine" or "any machine." That would count as
    > a number in my book. Is that option no longer present?
    I don't remember such an option when I installed 10.2.

    I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) such an option when I installed 8
    on my Quadra. I definitely know that it exists for systems 6 and 7.

    Don't know about 9, 10.0 and 10.1 - I never installed them (9.22 and
    10.1 were preloaded on my Mac and I never had to reinstall either.)

    -- David
    David C. Guest

  6. #26

    Default Re: Solution!!!


    > "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morristhis.is.invalid> writes:
    >>
    >> Incorrect. All Macs have a ROM on the main logic board. Without
    >> it, the CPU wouldn't know how to do a damned thing -- it couldn't
    >> read anything from the hard drive, it couldn't process keystrokes,
    >> it couldn't draw things on the screen, it couldn't even ask for a
    >> boot disk. All it could do is sit there wasting electricity. It
    >> needs a ROM with enough code to tell it how to look for a boot disk
    >> and read the boot sector.

    True for the most part, but you can have a computer that operates without
    any kind of ROM. Many years ago, I ran a computer that required loading a
    basic boot program into memory through a set of front panel switches. You
    set the binary address and the memory contents for each instruction. This
    loaded another program from punched tape that was smart enough to read from
    the hard disks. Ah- the good old days when 16KB was a lot of memory.

    Bob Haar Guest

  7. #27

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    Bob Haar writes:
    >
    > True for the most part, but you can have a computer that operates
    > without any kind of ROM. Many years ago, I ran a computer that
    > required loading a basic boot program into memory through a set of
    > front panel switches. You set the binary address and the memory
    > contents for each instruction. This loaded another program from
    > punched tape that was smart enough to read from the hard disks.
    Toggle switches for the boot loader. Lots of old systems did that.
    IIRC, the DEC PDP-8 did. So did the MITS Altair. I think most
    systems from the dawn of compuing did.
    > Ah- the good old days when 16KB was a lot of memory.
    That would've been about when I got my TRS-80 CoCo. Had to justify
    getting the 16K model instead of the 4K model. Of course, with the OS
    in ROM (well, a BASIC interpreter,) 4K actually is enough to do some
    interesting things.

    -- David
    David C. Guest

  8. #28

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article <m2brtscg00.fsfqqqq.invalid>, [email]shaminotechie.com[/email] (David C.)
    wrote:
    > I don't remember such an option when I installed 10.2.
    >
    > I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) such an option when I installed 8
    > on my Quadra. I definitely know that it exists for systems 6 and 7.
    >
    > Don't know about 9, 10.0 and 10.1 - I never installed them (9.22 and
    > 10.1 were preloaded on my Mac and I never had to reinstall either.)
    >
    > -- David
    I have a vague belief that 10.x doesn't use it at all. It's in the 9
    System Folder and you don't have to have a 9 install.

    G
    Gregory Weston Guest

  9. #29

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article <BB854744.487E7%bobhaarcomcast.net>,
    Bob Haar <bobhaarcomcast.net> wrote:
    > True for the most part, but you can have a computer that operates
    > without any kind of ROM.
    I did say "all Macs", not "all computers".

    > Many years ago, I ran a computer that required loading a basic boot
    > program into memory through a set of front panel switches. You set
    > the binary address and the memory contents for each instruction. This
    > loaded another program from punched tape that was smart enough to
    > read from the hard disks. Ah- the good old days when 16KB was a lot
    > of memory.
    Ah, yes, I remember those. And a row of LEDs so you could examine the
    contents of memory the same way, one byte at a time. Back in the days
    when "building your own computer" meant soldering all the parts onto a
    circuit board. And sometimes etching your own circuit board.

    I wonder if anyone still makes ROMless computers with toggle switches
    for manual data entry? I haven't seen one since the days of the
    Commodore PET and the Apple ][.
    Wayne C. Morris Guest

  10. #30

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article
    <wayne.morris-205253.12365811092003shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
    "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morristhis.is.invalid> wrote:
    > In article <BB854744.487E7%bobhaarcomcast.net>,
    > Bob Haar <bobhaarcomcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > > True for the most part, but you can have a computer that operates
    > > without any kind of ROM.
    >
    > I did say "all Macs", not "all computers".
    >
    >
    > > Many years ago, I ran a computer that required loading a basic boot
    > > program into memory through a set of front panel switches. You set
    > > the binary address and the memory contents for each instruction. This
    > > loaded another program from punched tape that was smart enough to
    > > read from the hard disks. Ah- the good old days when 16KB was a lot
    > > of memory.
    How about 10 K (decimal) of six-bit characters and 200 of those given to
    the add/subtract tables because the machine couldn't. I'm talking about
    the IBM 1620 and RCA 301.
    >
    > Ah, yes, I remember those. And a row of LEDs so you could examine the
    > contents of memory the same way, one byte at a time. Back in the days
    > when "building your own computer" meant soldering all the parts onto a
    > circuit board. And sometimes etching your own circuit board.
    LEDs? Naw; maybe neon bulbs or nixies or even, incandesent.
    >
    > I wonder if anyone still makes ROMless computers with toggle switches
    > for manual data entry? I haven't seen one since the days of the
    > Commodore PET and the Apple ][.
    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    Tom Stiller Guest

  11. #31

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In article <BB854744.487E7%bobhaarcomcast.net>,
    Bob Haar <bobhaarcomcast.net> wrote:
    > True for the most part, but you can have a computer that operates
    > without any kind of ROM.

    Actually, the DEC 11/780 had no ROM at all.

    MOST CPU's are microcoded, that is there is a ROM that converts
    the instruction set to internal hardware signals. On the VAX,
    the microcode was in RAM, so you had to load the instruction set
    before you could even load the boot program.

    DEC sent microcode for the VAX instruction set on an 8" floppy.
    The "console" for the VAX was a 8 bit computer that had
    direct access to the VAX CPU. The console read the microcode from
    the floppy into the special RAM, then it loaded the boot program,
    and reset the VAX.

    DEC considered this a feature. They never had to issue an
    a CPU erratta sheet, they just gave you an architecture upgrade.

    KLK
    KLK Guest

  12. #32

    Default Re: Solution!!!

    In comp.sys.mac.misc KLK <klknineteeninterfold.com> wrote:
    > Actually, the DEC 11/780 had no ROM
    for its VAX processor.
    > at all.
    Because it didn't need it; the "Console Microprocessor" on the CPU (board)
    that had its own ROM. That doesn't count.
    > MOST CPU's are microcoded, that is there is a ROM that converts
    > the instruction set to internal hardware signals. On the VAX,
    > the microcode was in RAM
    Not all of it (at least not on the VAX 11/780 in my cellar), only patches
    and special features. It just needed as many patches as a comtemporary
    Pentium III.
    > DEC considered this a feature.
    Me too. And Intel obviously too.


    Noses.
    Noses Guest

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: September 21st, 02:45 PM
  2. Cannot boot "Ran out of input data --system halted" message
    By Zachary Barrow in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 13th, 04:46 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 18th, 07:13 AM
  4. Lsass.exe System error "object name not found". System keeps rebooting
    By Deepak in forum Windows Setup, Administration & Security
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 04:10 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 7th, 09:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139