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

Re: USB pendrive mobility (fat32)?



Wackojacko wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:00PM -0800, Bob McGowan wrote:

The difference is that, for Linux at least, it will also work with multiple primary partitions on a disk.

I don't recall ever having problems with Windows and multiple primary partitions (and that was my prefered way of partitioning).

Regards,
Andrei


Me neither, and a little googling on the subject seems to suggest this problem is limited to the driver windows uses for USB sticks. Apparently, there is a work around (not tested by me) by forcing windows to see your stick as a USB disk (1). This will only work on PC's that have been modified for your particular stick though. Suppose its an extra level of security and you could always carry the modified driver on the first partition of the stick for portability.

HTH

Wackojacko

(1) http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversion/index.php/t69211.html



I suppose I should have stated at the beginning, the basis I was working from.

I worked for a company that made PC compatible hardware, in the late '80s to early '90s. I do not recall which version of DOS was available at that time (and I don't think there's a need to research it). I think it was around version 3 or 4. The point is, not a modern version by any stretch of the imagination.

What I do know is that DOS would only create one primary partition and would not let you delete or modify anything other than the one it created.

I never tried actually using a second primary partition, I was simply told that it didn't work. Maybe that statement should have been more like it 'didn't work reliably', or some such.

And, I'll say this, given the situation and what I knew about DOS back then, I would certainly not have trusted the setup, even if I'd tested it and found that DOS could see other primary partitions as valid drive letters.

--
Bob McGowan

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Reply to: