another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check

[Andriy Gapon]

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