[mintsuki]

I know every word of what I said in the message you're replying to. While what you said is mostly accurate, as in MBR != BIOS and GPT != UEFI, never in my original message have I stated that that is the case. And the rest of what you said is incorrect, as per my original message.

I invite you to read what I said again.

[superkuh]

Oof. On re-read I see now this sub-thread's topic was "non-GPT, non-MBR". So my "response" was ... off topic and useless. Sorry.

I am not sure what I said that was incorrect though. As I'm always looking to learn, which bit? I am currently assuming the 'rest' about GPT on true BIOS machines. I suppose I have never booted off GPT formatted disks in true BIOS machines. I always boot off MBR formatted disks and just used the GPT as storage/etc.

But I'm unclear on how this would break things since you can still have the MBR in the first sector on a GPT formatted disk. And how could the true BIOS motherboards detect GPT format on the disks when they don't know about it?

[mintsuki]

Because they do know about them. At least some of them do, of course.

Ideally, BIOS/CSM systems should not care about what type of partition table format a disk uses, and just boot by loading the boot sector (the 1st sector), and passing control to it.

In the real world, some machines will check for whether an MBR exists (by MBR meaning the partition table contained in the first sector, also called "msdos" partition table, naming varies depending on who you ask), some of them will check whether there is any partition set as active in said MBR, some of them will, indeed, check if there is a GPT (past any protective MBR), and ignore such disks - possibly because firmware writers thought that no GPT disk should be bootable on BIOS systems (Windows doesn't support it, so...), to avoid passing control to an empty protective MBR and possibly crash or hang as a result.