another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check

[Andriy Gapon]

on 08/03/2010 22:23 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
> 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.
This hasn't added any clarity.

So I'll just post one link about what position Apple had (note the past tense)
about protective MBR:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/technotes/tn2006/tn2166.html#SECPROTECTIVEMBR

-- 
Andriy Gapon