You are probably right that they are in fact logical volumes inside extended partitions.
If they are, than the "normal" IO.SYS has lettered the drive along what is stated in the MS KB.
I wasn't aware at the time that I was creating a non-standard configuration!
Accepting that my configuration is non-standard, why would that mean that changing the IO.SYS file would rearrange the drive letters (presumably to what would have been the standard configuration.)
Are the drive letter assignments actually stored in IO.SYS?
That would certainly explain it.
First thing rest assured that it is, at least theoretically, a "standard" configuration.
There is no law whatsoever against having a drive with just a big extended partition.
To avoid the drive letters changing when a new drive is inserted, from the "dawn of time"
I have always formatted my hard disks with a smallish primary partition and all the rest one big extended partition, with one or more volumes in it.
This way, when I used the drive as second or third hard disk I simply hid the primary partition, but when and if I needed the drive on that or another machine as first drive, I unhid that partition and I would have a bootable system without any need to re-partition or use third party utilities like partition magic.http://www.msfn.org/...n...6.html&st=2http://www.msfn.org/...i...5.html&st=3
But the letter changing with the modified IO.SYS remains still a "mistery", the scope of the patch is to remove the problem that (actually not very often) happens in Win98 or Me when some "non-standard" partitioning schemes (or to be more exact logical volumes inside extended partitins with "wrong" CHS or LBA access) are used, fdisk does not create this situation AFAIK, but other "advanced" third party utilities may
If you used fdisk to create your paritioning scheme, your setup should be "kosher", and the patch, while correcting a possible problem, creates another one.
Since letter assigner was developed of course we have no more any problems with drive lettering, and we can rename them at will under 9x/Me just like we are used to in NT/2K/XP, but your experience suggest that this patch should be used ONLY if the double lettering happens, and NOT as an "upgrade" patch.