[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Hamm installation problems (fdisk bug)



You're right. I used Win95's OSR2 fdisk tool. Now since my last message I 
have found a tool, partinfo, which is made by Power Quest,
the guys that do Partition Magic. When I ran this tool on my partition
table it told me this:

C:WIN95    FAT16B       Pri,Boot   509.8       0 0      63   1044162
           ExtendedX    Pri       8197.2       0 1 1044225  16787925

And on their Web site they talk about "ExtendedX", "Fat16X", "Fat32X" 
partition types as being partitions that can go past the 8GB limit. I think 
this is a Microsoft invention to denote partitions for which the CHS 
information should be ignored and the LBA used instead. But because this 
give different partition system ids Linux fdisk no longer recognises them 
as extended/fat16/fat32 partitions.
The problem if I use old Dos's fdisk is that Win95 will believe that my 
extended partition only goes to cylinder 1023 when it goes up to 1109. I 
think I'll scrap what is on my hard disk for now (I'll have fun 
reinstalling it later) and install Linux. Unless someone knows of a version 
of fdisk that would support these new partition types.
Anyone interested in this problem should probably have a look at the 
following Web pages:

http://www.powerquest.com/downlwd/part.html -> to download partinfo
http://www.powerquest.com/support/commoncalls.html -> look for "Drives > 
8gbs"
winioctl.h -> in this file I found the following lines:

#define PARTITION_FAT32                 0x0B      // FAT32
#define PARTITION_FAT32_XINT13          0x0C      // FAT32 using extended 
int13 services
#define PARTITION_XINT13                0x0E      // Win95 partition using 
extended int13 services
#define PARTITION_XINT13_EXTENDED       0x0F      // Same as type 5 but 
uses extended int13 services


Francois




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: