From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1CtcTu-0001Vl-8M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:00:30 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1CtcTe-0001Rd-Qs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:00:17 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CtcTd-0001NH-Mo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:00:13 -0500
Received: from [38.113.3.61] (helo=smtp-out.hotpop.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ctc5R-00012L-9e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:35:13 -0500
Received: from phreaker.net (kubrick.hotpop.com [38.113.3.103])
	by smtp-out.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 20081CF483D
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:35:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:34:09 -0500
From: "Jim C. Brown" <jbrown106@phreaker.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Boot Sequence
Message-ID: <20050126013409.GA12928@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
References: <45768.64.244.234.131.1106690166.squirrel@64.244.234.131>
	<20050126003824.GA11510@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<79bf98480501251655d9c017e@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <79bf98480501251655d9c017e@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: jbrown106@swift-mail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:55:58PM -0800, Mike Swanson wrote:
> It would be useful with installing the older NTs (the ones that
> required floppy disks) and Windows 9x/Me (where you generally have to
> go through a few disks for partitioning and formatting and then
> booting into DOS and then running setup).
> 
> I see advantages to this boot sequence aproach, not useless bloat.
> 
> 

Ah of course. Every OS i've ever installed has been via cdrom boot, which
required one reboot, so I've never needed this.

This option would be quite useful to have, agreed. You'd probably want an option
in the monitor to change the boot device also.

-- 
Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty.
Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.