Eric Hvozda wrote:
> Adam Glass wrote:
> > I've used OS-BS 1.35 w/1.0.  It lets me select between NetBSD and
> > DOS/Windows NT 3.5 BETA.  Works OK.
> >
> > Has anyone compared OS-BS and Boot Easy?

> I've tried both and OS-BS v2.0(?), and I prefer OS-BS v1.35...

> The newer version of OS-BS tends to put all kinds of silly DOS like
> graphics on the screen.  But it tries to support booting from the 2nd
> HD like Boot Easy does.

> Boot Easy likes to pretend there is a DOS style MBR on all HD's, whether
> there is or not; and for those of you who have a strictly *BSD 2nd HD,
> you've just lost your boot blocks, disklabel, and perhaps part of your
> file system :-(

> I had that happen about 8 months ago, don't know if there is a newer
> version of Boot Easy out or not.  It seems to work fine as long as
> you have DOS style MBR's on all disks...

My experiences are as follows
OS-BS 1.35:	great for single disks, and you can edit the boot
		menu text. Fits in 512 bytes of boot sector...

OS-BSD 2.0beta	didn't like because (I think) it used to write a 512
		boot sector plus another few K of info.

BootEasy	no title configuration, rather simple, but supports
		two drives. My suggestion is to those running netbsd
		on an entire second drive is to say `NO' to the
		"install on second drive?" question. That way,
		pressing F5 loads the netbsd loader instead of
		the booteasy one (which would have trashed your
		netbsd bootblocks if you had installed it...)


-- 
``Concealment is never as hard as people think, you must          Luke Mewburn
  understand that. It's action while hiding that's the        <lm@werj.com.au>
  hard part.''
    -- Coyote, in Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Green Mars'