Quote:
Originally Posted by frostschutz
Maybe I should try copying original to backup instead and hope that the first sector is always messed with in a way that stays identical to the backup.
|
Nope, not good at all. Original and backup identical, fsck.fat is happy with it, Linux is happy with it, Kobo is happy with it, Win10 hates it. I had a good backup sector, bad original sector, and copying original to backup ruined it.
List of differences (after reboot and all) is now considerably smaller than before.
Code:
# fsck.fat /dev/sdj
fsck.fat 4.0 (2016-05-06)
There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
This is mostly harmless. Differences: (offset:original/backup)
489:8d/00, 490:ef/00, 491:02/00, 492:d2/00
1) Copy original to backup
2) Copy backup to original
3) No action
?
Bytes 489-492 are different now, earlier it was 489-509. So it's something in 493-509 that Win10 doesn't like.
And choosing 2) no longer helps.
I have to read up what those bytes are supposed to be in a FAT32 header. Also I'm completely unclear where change of those other bytes originally came from.
Edit: Apparently byte 90-509 is supposed to be 420 bytes of bootloader code. Which shouldn't be used by anything or for anything as no one is booting from this. Which is probably why Kobo thought it would be okay to mess around with. Why does bootloader code matter to Win10... and where does it come from... a mystery.