Question Regarding the New Timeout Options

Order for the timeout options

  • Timeout after x seconds, no timeout, skip timeout

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • No timeout, timeout after x seconds, skip timeout

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • Total voters
    4
mqudsi

mqudsi

Mostly Harmless
Staff member
Just a quick Q regarding the newly added timeout options in the latest build, reflected in the poll above. I'm not sure if I should put the options in logical order (no timeout, a small timeout, zero timeout) or in order of popularity (small timeout, no timeout, skip timeout).

8icf
 
There were a couple of cases with people where even when setting the timeout to zero the menu would show. This uses an explicit bcd setting to make sure that it doesn't happen.
 
No timeout means it'll hang at the selection screen (maybe I need to phrase that better?) and skip boot menu means it'll go directly into the default OS.
 
OK, got you.
1 is timeout 999 rather than 0
How about "Halt at boot screen till user responds"
Or Just "Wait for response"

Addendum:

The Monk in me favours sequential (as is) for neatness, whilst my more logical self says "most-used first". I'm torn between the two, so didn't vote !
 
Last edited:
Awesome. :smile: I've been wanting this option for a long time: an infinite hang at BCD boot menu until option is selected. How did you make that happen? Use a really high number for timeout, like Terry suggested, or did you use a modified version of the BCD?

I vote for:

First option: Skip boot menu
Second option: Boot default OS after x seconds
Third option: No timeout/Wait for boot selection

:smile: But unfortunately, that's not one of the vote options.
 
Yeah, I think I like that one better. Fundamentally it's the same as the current screenshot in that it's sorted by logic, just in reverse order. I might actually use that :smile:

I pulled it off by overflowing the timeout counter, setting the timeout equal to 4,294,967,295 (which is 0xFFFFFFFF in hexadecimal). Probably a lesser value would have triggered it as well, because I don't think it's actually overflowing on the integer in the BCD store so much as the display at boot time.

Addendum:

Oh, and nice to see you around again :smile:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top