Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:40:51 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check Message-ID: <4B9544B3.80203@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <FB4B329E-807F-4A47-A86B-AE3BC049A6DC@mac.com> References: <E1Noh4B-000JjD-5u@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com> <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> <FB4B329E-807F-4A47-A86B-AE3BC049A6DC@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 08/03/2010 20:36 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: > On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 08/03/2010 19:55 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >>> On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Pete French wrote: >>>> The queston is then, why isn't Windows treating it as GPT ? >>> Ask Microsoft. So far I've only seen violations to the spec. At >>> least Apple kept to the spirit of it... >> According to my understanding it's the opposite as much as I hate saying this. >> My understanding is that valid GPT scheme _must_ provide only a protective MBR, >> i.e. MBR where there is only partition and it is of type 0xEE. >> That is, any "hybrid MBR" is not a valid GPT scheme. >> Google turns up a lot of stuff on this topic. > > Exactly. That is exactly the violation of the spec I was referring > to. I am not which part of what I said you meant by 'that'. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B9544B3.80203>