another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:

> 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'.

All of it.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com