On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07
5 -0700, "nooneyouknow"
<nooneyouknow@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Bob" <Bob@znospam.com> wrote in message
>news:0pbhs5t8h4ufv2nm0tf8131h480sastu38@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:188 +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.