[Techtalk] Extended Partitions - I found it! - QUITE! :)

[Hamster]

On 20 Nov 2003 09:17:55 -0500
TechChiq <techchiq at hotpop.com> wrote:

Well I guess the subject line is a matter of opinion. As far as I'm
concerned my question is still unanswered. You've simply stated "use 0x85"
without explaining why. Except for what Brenda said about the use of
INT13 by dos based OSs, I'm still none the wiser as to the differences
between the two. Is that the only difference?

I know for a fact that linux doesn't mind which one you use. This can be
borne out by the fact that the harddrives in both my perfectly functioning
computers have an 0x0F extended partition type, and so does another person
who posted their partition table to the list - they also have a perfectly
functioning system that uses the 0x0F. So the topic as far as I'm concerned
is still "not quite".

> The above links pretty much confirm that 0x0F is also a type of
> DOS-based partition and should not be used as a linux partition type.

Well of course its DOS based. Its name alone is enough to tell you that. But
there's nothing wrong with using it to hold logical drives formatted as ext2
or ext3 or some other linux filesystem. 

> > Well yeah, if the issue is choosing between 0x85 and 0x05, the ok. But
> > thats not the question. My question is asking the difference between
> > ***0x0F*** and 0x85. 
> 
> 0x85. Always.

Can you explain why? I would question that statement as being quite
incorrect. Its true in limited set of circumstances; certainly not in
all. The whole dual booting issue for a start has, I think, a significant
bearing on which one you choose.

> Good luck. :) But I really don't think it'll work too good.

Why on earth won't an experiment "work too good"? It seems that in the
absence of hard facts its the best way of finding out how it all works!

Hamster