🚀 go-pugleaf

A. Padgett Peterson ( padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com ) writes:

> ...
> The answer is that while all of MS-DOS is used, part of it is only
> necessary for start-up. Once these segments are complete, the memory
> occupied by structures like SYSINIT is released back into the free space
> for re-use just like when an application is complete, the space occupied
> is reuseable by the next program. With ROM this is more difficult.
> ...

and I wrote

> ...
> If the [ MS-DOS in ] ROM upgrade is on a cartridge (similar to HP
> fonts), upgrading would involve swapping cartridges, which could also
> contain the other DOS-related files (CHKDSK, EDLIN, etc.).
> ...
> It would provide SOME protection from viri, in that the DOS files
> themselves, being in ROM, would be immune from infection.
> ...

We're writing from two different premises.  Padgett is writing about
MS- DOS actually running from ROM, while I'm writing about the DOS
files, and the boot disk itself, being in ROM ( a ROM-disk, as opposed
to a RAM-disk ).  The method of running MS-DOS from ROM, as Padgett
states, is currently used by some laptops, and also by some diskless
LAN- stations and third-party boot cards.  The method of booting from
a ROM- disk ( with an infection-proof boot sector and system files ),
which I wrote about, is not implemented at this time, to the best of
my knowledge.

Mr. Peterson and I are not arguing the point ( at least I hope not;
sorry if it seemed that way, Padgett ), but we're presenting two
different answers to the same question.  Each method has its
advantages and disadvantages, and each may be applicable in different
situations.  Since this may indeed be an ongoing discussion, I thought
it necessary to point out the differences in our solutions.

Oh, BTW, Michael A. Maxim ( mmaxim@sc9.intel.com ) writes:

> If some board maker actually
> wanted to enable software modification to the BIOS EEPROM, there is no
> reason that he couldn't do it; but that is a problem with the board
> and manufacturer, not the chips.

I had originally questioned the security of using EEPROMs and a
software- upgradable BIOS, not the EEPROMs themselves.  I had merely
used Intel's announcement as a starting point for my discussion, and I
apologize if I seemed like I was being critical of the chips or the
technology.

Bill Walker ( WALKER@AEDC-VAX.AF.MIL ) |
OAO Corporation                        | "Non sequitur -- your facts are
Arnold Engineering Development Center  |  un-coordinated."
M.S. 120                               |           -- NOMAD
Arnold Air Force Base, TN  37389-9998  |