ElectroSoldier wrote on Today, 21:20:
Except the problems that he has had prove you wrong!
Its not like he is saving anything worth saving. He is moving from MBR to GPT on a system that is better suited to using GPT because its UEFI not BIOS.
Define better suited.
And perhaps I suggested a painless way to use a UEFI partition, w/o having to renounce to the MBR simplicity.
Native vhds can be, obviously, either UEFI or MBR at your liking, it's just that UEFI solves a problem nobody has, a solution looking for problems
And even if vhds are too simply to use for your liking, you can use Clover to use GPT partitions on a 20 y/o system, just like you can use CSMWrap to install old and modern OSes even on UEFI class 3 systems that criminally come w/o CSM support
Also you can use a MBR formatted disk with a fake UEFI partition at the beginning, keeping that disk bootable no matter where you connect it, a universal disk w/o a single bit of third part SW
First your post has overtones of elitest crap
If knowledge, for you = elitism, I'm proud to be an elitist
There are ways to save it and make it work, but in this instance the juice isnt worth the squeeze. ESPECIALLY when you consider he could go up to a nice NVMe drive now that the 4th gen system didnt support for £25.
Where I talked about the specific case? I gave general suggestions, useful for everyone who read this thread, because you know what? For every thread with 4 writing users there are hundreds of subscribers and lurker that read.
Even a basic ex enterprise used drive from a decommissioned corp PC would perform MUCH faster than the SATA SSD or HDD he carried over to the new system.
Obviously SSD are faster than HDDs, but I'd like to find a single user able to spot the difference from a NVME and SATA SSD w/o restorting to a benchmark.
Perhaps again where I wrote something against NVMEs? Like a my famous compatriot used to say "I'm responsible of what I write, not of what you understand"
You think he should still use MBR?
Reverse the question, why use GPT if you're not forced to?
Your trying to use MBR so as not use the mitigation put in place to prove your point?
If MS publishes official scripts to do so and the Linux kernel developers put in place an option to do so, maybe it is for a reason, maybe for many reasons. As simple as that.
First rule of a sysadmin is never put a system into production that you know you will have to babysit.
Even this is debatable, making a system that you have to never maintain again = is the receipt to become unemployed.
Remember that, in the mind of a client, if a system requires no maintenance is because the OS is robust and the HW is reliable. No one think it's because the sysadmin did a good job
third rule is keep it simple, stupid!
You literally have no idea of what a native vhds is? Literally there isn't anything simpler of them.
A single file to backup a whole OS
Backup = copy one file from here to there using explorer or the command line, not a complicate and unreliable backup SW
A single partition on the physical disk, no matter if you use 2 or 27 OS in multiple boot.
The same os can be booted on baremetal, hyper V, VBox, KVM even vmware, under Window, Linux, *BSD, and other OSes
Migrate an OS between machines, is again matter of copying a single file using explorer and a single command to add it to the bootloader (or bootice if you prefer a gui app)
And I can continue for a day.
KISS is the king but you have to understand what it means before mentioning it in vain.