another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check

[Marcel Moolenaar]

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:
>> 
>>>> To clarify: the protective MBR is there only to protect the GPT
>>>> disk from tools that do not understand the GPT. Any GPT-aware
>>>> tool will treat the disk as a GPT disk. Consequently: the MBR
>>>> is inferior to the GPT...
>>> 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.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com