FAT32 v. FAT32 (LBA)

Technetium · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: FAT32 v. FAT32 (LBA)

Hi,
I'm partitioning a disk and I'm wondering what the difference is between FAT32 and FAT32 (LBA) in fdisk.
I used both the last time I partitioned a disk, and I'm wondering, "Why?"
This is my old disk's partition table:

wmgoree · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject: Logical block addressing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_block_addressing
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/bios/modesLBA-c.html

Enjoy
_________________
vi? *snicker* it doesn't even include a mail reader...

Technetium · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:29 am Post subject:

Gracias.

All Google searches turn up similar information ... roughly from 3-4 years ago.
I thought, after I had posted this, that this was a bad post to a Gentoo forum. The only saving grace being that I do all my partitioning from Gentoo, because I can trust it.
:idea:

moocha · Watchman Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 5722

As far as I can remember, code 0x0b (FAT32) was the default code for partitions containing a file system for pre-OSR2 Windows 95 installation. Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows 98 / 98SE / ME default to code 0x0c (FAT32 LBA) when they detect a LBA-capable BIOS on a hard drive bigger than 4 gigabytes (and if LBA is turned on in the BIOS too, of course), otherwise they use 0x0b (funnily enough even on LBA-capable BIOSes with LBA turned on if the drive is less than 4 gigabytes or the partition is less than 2 gigabytes; this is incorrect behavior but things still work).
Since you're probably not using the 9x series of Windows operating systems, FAT32 LBA should be the code of choice.
_________________
Military Commissions Act of 2006: http://tinyurl.com/jrcto

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- attributed to Benjamin Franklin