1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Force format to extended partition

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Bob, Apr 15, 2010.

  1. Bob

    Bob Flightless Bird

    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?
     
  2. Gordon

    Gordon Flightless Bird

    "Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    > 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?


    If that is the sole partition on the drive then it CAN'T be "extended".
    Never was in XP either....
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Flightless Bird

    Gordon wrote:
    >
    > "Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >> 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?

    >
    > If that is the sole partition on the drive then it CAN'T be "extended".
    > Never was in XP either....


    Doesn't Win7 create a 100MB system reserved partition?
     
  4. Bob

    Bob Flightless Bird

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >> 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?

    >
    >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 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.
     
  5. nooneyouknow

    nooneyouknow Flightless Bird

    "Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >>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 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.


    XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.
     
  6. Bob

    Bob Flightless Bird

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:35 -0700, "nooneyouknow"
    <nooneyouknow@spam.invalid> wrote:

    >
    >"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>>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 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.

    >
    >XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.


    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.
     
  7. relic

    relic Flightless Bird

    "Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    news:6qnhs5d03b5kv3g8jh8f88mbvietojh59i@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:35 -0700, "nooneyouknow"
    > <nooneyouknow@spam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
    >>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>>
    >>>>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 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.

    >>
    >>XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.

    >
    > 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.


    Extended 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
     
  8. Bob

    Bob Flightless Bird

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:59:49 -0700, "relic" <relic211@cjb.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >news:6qnhs5d03b5kv3g8jh8f88mbvietojh59i@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:35 -0700, "nooneyouknow"
    >> <nooneyouknow@spam.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
    >>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >>>>>> 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?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>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 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.
    >>>
    >>>XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >Extended 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


    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.
     
  9. relic

    relic Flightless Bird

    "Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:jths59b2slanjnsa7auqkh1847iu954q9@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:59:49 -0700, "relic" <relic211@cjb.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>news:6qnhs5d03b5kv3g8jh8f88mbvietojh59i@4ax.com...
    >>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:35 -0700, "nooneyouknow"
    >>> <nooneyouknow@spam.invalid> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
    >>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:18:38 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:geles59gbbvhkddhmqcpbr3b4f1ihkpmn8@4ax.com...
    >>>>>>> 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?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>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 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>XP supported FAT32, but who would want it.
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>Extended 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

    >
    > 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.
    >


    No performance problems that I've ever heard of, just maintenance
    annoyances: e.g., removing an NTFS logical partition in an extended
    partition.
     

Share This Page