Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.os2.setup.storage > #67

Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:16:04 UTC, Felix Miata 
<UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE@dev.nul> wrote:

> On 2012-11-26 21:30 (GMT) Paul Ratcliffe composed:
> 
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:22:27 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> >> multiple primary partitions lacking the hidden attribute are acceptable.
> 
> > I think extended partitions and logical drives came in with DOS 4.0
> > This was before OS/2 1.0 came out in Dec. 1987 (IIRC).
> 
> I just dug out 3.2 & 3.3 boot floppies. On system with a motherboard dating 
> to around 1997 with a K6/2 CPU, and partitioning as follows:
> 
>   251M 0x16 primary
>   7.8M 0x01 primary/startable
>    79M 0x83 primary
>   384M 0x82 logical
> 5428M 0x83 logical
> 
> FDISK from 3.2 reports
>   32M non-DOS
>    1M FAT active
>   10M non-DOS
> 741M non-DOS
> 
> FDISK from 3.3 reports
>   32M non-DOS
>    1M FAT active
>   10M non-DOS
> 741M Ext DOS
> No logicals drives defined.
> 
> Obviously these antiques don't understand LBA or even FAT16B, but 3.3 does 
> recognize 0x05 as extended.
> 
> >> I'm interested in knowing if members of the OS2/eCS community have been aware
> >> of this, for how long if so,
> 
> > Er, about 25 years!
> 
> Did you notice the phrase "lacking the hidden attribute" (key component of 
> the subject)?

Like Paul I have known about this for about 25 years and, in fact, 
still have an old DOS computer with a 10 MB hard disk that has 4 non 
hidden primary partitions on it.

Where the idea of primary partitions having to be hidden originates I 
don't know.  It might come from trying to set up a multi boot system 
booting from a primary partition when each boot partition required the
same letter therefore you had to hide the one(s) you weren't booting 
from.  This is only applicable to windows systems because OS/2 quite 
happily boots from a logical partition.

ivan
-- 

Back to comp.os.os2.setup.storage | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Multiple "Visible" Primaries Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE@dev.nul> - 2012-11-26 15:22 -0500
  Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2012-11-26 21:30 +0000
    Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE@dev.nul> - 2012-11-26 23:16 -0500
      Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries "ivan" <ivanjt@free.fr> - 2012-11-27 16:19 +0000
        Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE@dev.nul> - 2012-11-27 13:53 -0500
          Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries "Peter J. Seymour" <Newsgroups@pjsey.demon.co.uk> - 2012-11-28 09:51 +0000
            Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Barry Landy <bl10nospam@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-11-28 10:41 +0000
            Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2012-12-16 23:58 +0000
              Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries "Peter J. Seymour" <Newsgroups@pjsey.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 08:18 +0000
        Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2012-12-16 23:55 +0000
      Re: Multiple "Visible" Primaries Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2012-12-16 23:53 +0000

csiph-web