If that is the sole partition on the drive then it CAN'T be "extended".Bob said:When partitioning/formatting a single large partition on a drive, Win7
apparently defaults to 'Primary' with no options for 'Extended' (as
was the case with XP). Is there any way to force Win7 to create an
extended partition rather than primary?
Doesn't Win7 create a 100MB system reserved partition?Gordon said:If that is the sole partition on the drive then it CAN'T be "extended".
Never was in XP either....
XP can indeed create an extended partition as the sole partition on aIf that is the sole partition on the drive then it CAN'T be "extended".
Never was in XP either....
XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.Bob said:XP can indeed create an extended partition as the sole partition on a
drive. Bring up XP's disk mgmt and it provides a choice between
creating primary or extended. Then one large logical partition can be
created within the extended partiton.
It's also possible to create the extended/logical partition under XP,
then format it under Win7. The obvious omission is the ability to
create the extended partition under Win7.
Anyone who wants transportability between systems that use FAT32 wouldXP supported FAT32, but who would want it.
Extended partitions were 'popular' with FAT32; not so much with NTFS. YouBob said:Anyone who wants transportability between systems that use FAT32 would
want it (that includes various hardware video players, for example).
And XP was only introduced because a previous poster said that XP
could not create a sole partition as 'extended', which is not correct.
Still that's not the point. Or are you aware of some inherent defect
in extended partitions that merited the comparison with FAT32? I'd be
curious to hear about that, as I've been using extended partitions for
storage drives for many years.
If not, then the question remains: Can Win7 create a sole partition on
a drive as 'extended'? It does not seem to be provided as a direct
option under the drive mgt snap-in, but that doesn't always mean that
it can't be done.
That's the answer then, thanks. I got in the habit of using extendedExtended partitions were 'popular' with FAT32; not so much with NTFS. You
can do it with the diskpart command if you need more than 4 partitions.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300415
No performance problems that I've ever heard of, just maintenanceBob said:That's the answer then, thanks. I got in the habit of using extended
partitions from the days when you couldn't control drive letter
displacement. Never saw any reason to change that, but I suppose it's
much less a factor now.
Do you happen to know of any actual drawbacks in using extended
partitions? Obviously I won't be installing bootable systems to them,
but aside from that, I'm not aware of any adverse performance effects.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.