On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:50:31AM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote: | On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:52:42PM -0500, D-Man wrote: | > I saw different symptons when I tried hiding the linux partitions from | > win2k, then not unhiding them from linux. The partition table wasn't | > messed up at all, I just couldn't boot because the partition didn't | > exist. (That's what hiding does, it makes the partition SEEM to not | > exist) | | No it doesn't, it simply changes the partition type by toggling one | bit, 0b (windows) becomes 1b (hidden windows), 83 (Linux ext) becomes | 93 (amoebe), and reverse. So indeed the partition table is not messed | up, only the type fields in the partition table are mangled, but in a
Oh, ok. I was under the impression that the hide/unhide was a function of the BIOS. Thanks for the explanation. | > When I unhid the partitions it was fine. Actually, I could still see | > the linux partions in win2k (though the disks had weird properties and | > didn't function, as expected). As a result I just removed all the | > hide/unhide commands. | | hide/unhide is only working for osses/loaders that pay attention to | the partition type. Linux/lilo for one, doesn't (as far as I know), | and I don't know of win2k. I'm surprised it did recognize linux | partitions though. Or did it only recognize the linux partitions if | they were hidden? In that case it thought it saw amoebe partitions It recognized the partitions in the same way whether they were hidden or not. They showed up as E: and F:, but other than showing up in "My Computer", they did nothing else. I think the properties listed it as 0 bytes or something. It wasn't quite correct, but it made sense because windows doesn't understand ext2. This is different than my Win98 machine at home which doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the ext2 partitions. -D
