Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download



Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

Partitioning

microsoft.public.windows.vista.installation setup






Speedup My PC
Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2007
dr d
 

Posts: n/a
Partitioning
I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
fourth partition?

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2007
\NachtWacht\
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
dr d <dharmuth@tcsn.net> schreef in bericht
news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...

> I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
> fourth partition?


Create it with Acronis Diskdirector 10.

--
____________________
>> NIGHTWATCHER <<

»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2007
R. C. White, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
Hi, dr d.

That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I have
to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.

My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus an
extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and put
only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the BCD
and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows versions
I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete and
recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed. I
never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think we
will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.

In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of the
disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and run
the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore dangerous -
utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a list
of the commands available.

I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)

"dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
> fourth partition?


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2007
Milhouse Van Houten
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
So just to be clear: you're saying this forcing of dynamic volumes only
comes into play after you already have three primary volumes? If so, that
should affect relatively few people, right? I think most people organize
their disks in the way you described in the second paragraph: one primary,
one extended, and a bunch of logical drives within the extended, which I
take it is also not affected by this. Please correct me if I'm not getting
this right.

That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to a
new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a primary for
the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before getting to data
volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't found it.

For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true), that it
might offer a way to get around XP's penchant for destroying Vista's restore
points, but it's too complicated and I don't know if it would work. I know
some third-party managers work with hidden volumes to solve this problem,
but I don't want to go back to them.

I was thinking that Vista's volume would normally be marked active, but if
you needed to boot into XP, you could make Vista inactive and XP active,
therefore rendering Vista invisible to XP. Maybe. Of course, you'd have to
be careful about the shifting drive letters, which is where it gets
complicated.

"R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi, dr d.
>
> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
> have
> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>
> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus
> an
> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and put
> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
> BCD
> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
> versions
> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete and
> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed.
> I
> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think
> we
> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>
> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
> the
> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and run
> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
> dangerous -
> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a list
> of the commands available.
>
> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>> fourth partition?

>



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2007
R. C. White, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
Hi, Milhouse.

> this forcing of dynamic volumes only comes into play after you already
> have three primary volumes? If so, that should affect relatively few
> people, right? I think most people organize their disks in the way you
> described in the second paragraph: one primary, one extended, and a bunch
> of logical drives within the extended, which I take it is also not
> affected by this.


I think almost all computer users go with the default setup installed by the
OEM: a single Drive C: covering the whole HD, except for a (probably
hidden) partition holding the OEM's proprietary stuff.

And I think most users savvy enough to organize their HDs themselves
probably also go with a single large Drive C:, or a few primary partitions.
I think only a relative few of us have used extended partitions at all. Of
course, we are the smart ones. Right? ;^}

You and I, with our one primary and multiple logical volumes, are not
affected by the new system on our existing HDs that have already been
partitioned by WinXP (or otherwise). But we will be affected when we try to
repartition an old HD or add partitions to a new one.

> That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to a
> new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a primary for
> the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before getting to data
> volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't found it.


I agree. I've always installed Windows/Vista into a logical drive, and have
purposely used multiple HDs, just in case one goes bad. For example, WinXP
x86 is on my Disk 0, Vista Ultimate x64 is on Disk 1, and various beta
versions (now deleted) were on Disks 0, 1 and 2. The System Partition MUST
be a primary partition, but any volume, primary or logical, on any HD in the
computer, can be used as the Boot Volume for a Windows or Vista
installation.

My "small" System Partition on each HD was originally the minimal 8 MB (yes,
that's an "M") when I was booting only Win9x/XP. Since it needed to hold
only NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini, which totaled less than half a MB,
even that was overkill, but that was the smallest allowed. And it gave me a
place to store BIOS binary flash files and some system-level utilities, such
as the original non-bloated DOS-version Norton Utilities, for emergencies.
I formatted this minimal partition FAT (not FAT32) for maximum OS
compatibility. It was always Drive C:, of course.

But Vista changes several things! For one, each "small" System Partition is
now 15 GB or more. Now it holds both the WinXP startup files, plus Vista's
BCD and \boot folder, and leaves several GB that Vista's Setup program seems
to demand. Nowadays, it is not always Drive C:. When we install Vista by
booting into WinXP or Vista and running Vista Setup from there, it reads and
respects our existing drive letters, letting us put Vista into D: or V: or
whichever volume letter we choose to be its Boot Volume. But when we
install Vista by booting from the Vista DVD, Setup assigns the letter C: to
whichever volume we install Vista into! Unless we install it into our
System Partition, that partition must be reassigned a letter other than C:,
probably D:. And Vista Setup won't know what letters we had already
assigned to other volumes, so it will assign them new letters, which we
probably will change later by using Disk Management. But we can't change
the letters for the System Partition or Boot Volume after Setup assigns them
without running Setup again. :>(

> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true)


Nope. Not true. Active simply means that the partition can be used as the
System Partition. Only one primary partition on each HD can be marked
Active, but a different primary partition can be chosen and marked in
various ways, including by Disk Management. Other partitions, though, are
not invisible.

I know almost nothing about hidden partitions; I've never used them. I have
almost no experience with multi-boot systems other than the one built into
NT and Vista versions of Windows, but I've been using that for about 10
years (since Win95/NT4.0). I have not used System Restore, although many of
my friends say they have often been life-savers, so I haven't experienced
the "lost restore point" problems that I've often seen reported.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:eYv8o0IjHHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> So just to be clear: you're saying this forcing of dynamic volumes only
> comes into play after you already have three primary volumes? If so, that
> should affect relatively few people, right? I think most people organize
> their disks in the way you described in the second paragraph: one primary,
> one extended, and a bunch of logical drives within the extended, which I
> take it is also not affected by this. Please correct me if I'm not getting
> this right.
>
> That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to a
> new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a primary for
> the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before getting to data
> volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't found it.
>
> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true), that it
> might offer a way to get around XP's penchant for destroying Vista's
> restore points, but it's too complicated and I don't know if it would
> work. I know some third-party managers work with hidden volumes to solve
> this problem, but I don't want to go back to them.
>
> I was thinking that Vista's volume would normally be marked active, but if
> you needed to boot into XP, you could make Vista inactive and XP active,
> therefore rendering Vista invisible to XP. Maybe. Of course, you'd have to
> be careful about the shifting drive letters, which is where it gets
> complicated.
>
> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
> news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi, dr d.
>>
>> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
>> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
>> have
>> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
>> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>>
>> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus
>> an
>> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
>> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and put
>> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
>> BCD
>> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
>> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
>> versions
>> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete and
>> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed.
>> I
>> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
>> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think
>> we
>> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>>
>> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
>> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
>> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
>> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
>> the
>> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and run
>> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
>> dangerous -
>> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
>> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a
>> list
>> of the commands available.
>>
>> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
>> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>>
>> RC
>>
>> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
>> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>>> fourth partition?


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2007
Milhouse Van Houten
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
"R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:%23Auo90MjHHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> I agree. I've always installed Windows/Vista into a logical drive, and
> have purposely used multiple HDs, just in case one goes bad. For example,
> WinXP x86 is on my Disk 0, Vista Ultimate x64 is on Disk 1, and various
> beta versions (now deleted) were on Disks 0, 1 and 2. The System
> Partition MUST be a primary partition, but any volume, primary or logical,
> on any HD in the computer, can be used as the Boot Volume for a Windows or
> Vista installation.


For anyone following along, the system volume is not the one with the system
actually on it, and the boot volume is not the one you actually boot from.
Thanks, Microsoft for the nomenclature (if it was indeed MS's fault), but
once you get it straight in your mind it's not too taxing, just flip what
would otherwise make sense.

> My "small" System Partition on each HD was originally the minimal 8 MB
> (yes, that's an "M") when I was booting only Win9x/XP. Since it needed to
> hold only NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini, which totaled less than half a
> MB, even that was overkill, but that was the smallest allowed. And it
> gave me a place to store BIOS binary flash files and some system-level
> utilities, such as the original non-bloated DOS-version Norton Utilities,
> for emergencies. I formatted this minimal partition FAT (not FAT32) for
> maximum OS compatibility. It was always Drive C:, of course.


We're practically the same person! It should be noted that you didn't
technically need the system partitions on the secondary drives, but as you
say above it's probably about being able to swap out Disk 0 if it goes bad
and being able to boot immediately from its replacement.

I also like the fact that the boot volumes never have the boot files on them
with this scheme, allowing you to blow it away if necessary. In the
situation in which the boot and system volume are one and the same, and you
have at least one other OS as well, it can get messy.

> But Vista changes several things! For one, each "small" System Partition
> is now 15 GB or more. Now it holds both the WinXP startup files, plus
> Vista's BCD and \boot folder, and leaves several GB that Vista's Setup
> program seems to demand. Nowadays, it is not always Drive C:.


I think I'm misreading you here, as you can't mean 15GB. My system partition
is 512MB, with only about 50-75MB of that used (the majority for stuff not
related to the OS), and I recall from the beta that Setup (boot-from-the-DVD
style) always stated that it required about 435MB (it varied from build to
build) on the system partition to install, presumably for the temporary
WinPE setup environment, which it absolutely needed to have on the system
volume. I remember having to scramble a couple times to clear up a few MBs
of space. In the future, I'm just going to make it 1GB, since I bet the next
beta won't fit.

But it's not 15GB. We have to be talking about two slightly different
things.

>> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
>> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true)

>
> Nope. Not true. Active simply means that the partition can be used as
> the System Partition. Only one primary partition on each HD can be marked
> Active, but a different primary partition can be chosen and marked in
> various ways, including by Disk Management. Other partitions, though, are
> not invisible.


Figures. But it's on so many sites I wonder if it was once true, or true
with certain older OS's (Win98?) or possibly involving non-MS OS's as well?
Two pages I saw it on are here (undated, so they could be quite old):
http://www.pcnineoneone.com/howto/clean3.html
http://www.ahuka.com/other/partition.html

Separately, I've read statements that XP (and presumably Vista) has no
problem at all with multiple, active primary partitions, though FDISK
doesn't let you do that. I'm not sure it matters either way.

> I know almost nothing about hidden partitions; I've never used them. I
> have almost no experience with multi-boot systems other than the one built
> into NT and Vista versions of Windows, but I've been using that for about
> 10 years (since Win95/NT4.0). I have not used System Restore, although
> many of my friends say they have often been life-savers, so I haven't
> experienced the "lost restore point" problems that I've often seen
> reported.


Business and Ultimate keep file histories though, and that's what I don't
want to lose. I don't much care about restore points themselves, but file
histories are great to have.

>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:eYv8o0IjHHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> So just to be clear: you're saying this forcing of dynamic volumes only
>> comes into play after you already have three primary volumes? If so,
>> that should affect relatively few people, right? I think most people
>> organize their disks in the way you described in the second paragraph:
>> one primary, one extended, and a bunch of logical drives within the
>> extended, which I take it is also not affected by this. Please correct me
>> if I'm not getting this right.
>>
>> That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to a
>> new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a primary
>> for the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before getting to
>> data volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't found it.
>>
>> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
>> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true), that it
>> might offer a way to get around XP's penchant for destroying Vista's
>> restore points, but it's too complicated and I don't know if it would
>> work. I know some third-party managers work with hidden volumes to solve
>> this problem, but I don't want to go back to them.
>>
>> I was thinking that Vista's volume would normally be marked active, but
>> if you needed to boot into XP, you could make Vista inactive and XP
>> active, therefore rendering Vista invisible to XP. Maybe. Of course,
>> you'd have to be careful about the shifting drive letters, which is where
>> it gets complicated.
>>
>> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
>> news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi, dr d.
>>>
>>> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
>>> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
>>> have
>>> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
>>> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>>>
>>> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus
>>> an
>>> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
>>> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and
>>> put
>>> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
>>> BCD
>>> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
>>> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
>>> versions
>>> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete
>>> and
>>> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed.
>>> I
>>> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
>>> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think
>>> we
>>> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
>>> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
>>> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
>>> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
>>> the
>>> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and
>>> run
>>> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
>>> dangerous -
>>> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
>>> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a
>>> list
>>> of the commands available.
>>>
>>> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
>>> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>>>
>>> RC
>>>
>>> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>>>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>>>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>>>> fourth partition?

>



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-03-2007
R. C. White, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
Hi, Milhouse.

See inline...

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uY9RNPPjHHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
> news:%23Auo90MjHHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> I agree. I've always installed Windows/Vista into a logical drive, and
>> have purposely used multiple HDs, just in case one goes bad. For
>> example, WinXP x86 is on my Disk 0, Vista Ultimate x64 is on Disk 1, and
>> various beta versions (now deleted) were on Disks 0, 1 and 2. The System
>> Partition MUST be a primary partition, but any volume, primary or
>> logical, on any HD in the computer, can be used as the Boot Volume for a
>> Windows or Vista installation.

>
> For anyone following along, the system volume is not the one with the
> system actually on it, and the boot volume is not the one you actually
> boot from. Thanks, Microsoft for the nomenclature (if it was indeed MS's
> fault), but once you get it straight in your mind it's not too taxing,
> just flip what would otherwise make sense.


It's not Microsoft's fault. It's legacy from before MS even existed, as I
understand it. For details, see this KB article:
Definition of System Partition and Boot Partition
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314470/EN-US/

This is the latest revision of this article, dated 1/31/07, but earlier
versions date back several years. It says it applies to WinXP, but it
obviously applies to all Windows versions, including Vista.

This latest revision discusses dynamic versus basic disks, and it further
blurs the distinction between "partition" and "volume". :>( In my opinion,
we should always say "System Partition", since only a primary partition can
serve as a System Partition, and saying "System Volume", while not wrong,
invistes confusion. But we also should always use the phrase "boot volume",
rather than "boot partition", since either kind of "volume" - primary
partition or logical drive - can serve as the boot volume.

And at least one statement in the KB article is wrong: It says that the
System Partition is always on Drive 0; my current System Partition is on my
Disk 1. This can vary depending on settings in CMOS.


>> My "small" System Partition on each HD was originally the minimal 8 MB
>> (yes, that's an "M") when I was booting only Win9x/XP. Since it needed
>> to hold only NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini, which totaled less than
>> half a MB, even that was overkill, but that was the smallest allowed.
>> And it gave me a place to store BIOS binary flash files and some
>> system-level utilities, such as the original non-bloated DOS-version
>> Norton Utilities, for emergencies. I formatted this minimal partition FAT
>> (not FAT32) for maximum OS compatibility. It was always Drive C:, of
>> course.

>
> We're practically the same person! It should be noted that you didn't
> technically need the system partitions on the secondary drives, but as you
> say above it's probably about being able to swap out Disk 0 if it goes bad
> and being able to boot immediately from its replacement.


Yes. The additional system partitions are just my version of insurance. If
Disk 0 fails, I can set CMOS to boot from Disk 1, so that I can diagnose and
repair the problem on Disk 0. Or even have different Boot.ini files or BCDs
on different HDs.


> I also like the fact that the boot volumes never have the boot files on
> them with this scheme, allowing you to blow it away if necessary. In the
> situation in which the boot and system volume are one and the same, and
> you have at least one other OS as well, it can get messy.


Yes!


>> But Vista changes several things! For one, each "small" System Partition
>> is now 15 GB or more. Now it holds both the WinXP startup files, plus
>> Vista's BCD and \boot folder, and leaves several GB that Vista's Setup
>> program seems to demand. Nowadays, it is not always Drive C:.

>
> I think I'm misreading you here, as you can't mean 15GB. My system
> partition is 512MB, with only about 50-75MB of that used (the majority for
> stuff not related to the OS), and I recall from the beta that Setup
> (boot-from-the-DVD style) always stated that it required about 435MB (it
> varied from build to build) on the system partition to install, presumably
> for the temporary WinPE setup environment, which it absolutely needed to
> have on the system volume. I remember having to scramble a couple times to
> clear up a few MBs of space. In the future, I'm just going to make it 1GB,
> since I bet the next beta won't fit.
>
> But it's not 15GB. We have to be talking about two slightly different
> things.


Yes, it's GB. I'm sure it's overkill, now that the beta is over. But
during the beta, I tried several times to upgrade to the newest build and it
always failed because there was not enough space on "the system drive", or
some such ambiguous phrase that left me wondering whether Vista Setup meant
the System Partitiion or the Boot Volume - or some other "drive". I'm still
not sure what the minimum size for the System Partition would be to
"upgrade" to Vista; I've always had to do a clean install, because I've
NEVER got an upgrade to work. :>{


>>> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
>>> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true)

>>
>> Nope. Not true. Active simply means that the partition can be used as
>> the System Partition. Only one primary partition on each HD can be
>> marked Active, but a different primary partition can be chosen and marked
>> in various ways, including by Disk Management. Other partitions, though,
>> are not invisible.

>
> Figures. But it's on so many sites I wonder if it was once true, or true
> with certain older OS's (Win98?) or possibly involving non-MS OS's as
> well? Two pages I saw it on are here (undated, so they could be quite
> old):
> http://www.pcnineoneone.com/howto/clean3.html


This one says that, "DOS and Windows will only see one primary partition,
any other primaries will be invisible." This is not true now, obviously,
and I'm not sure that it ever was.

> http://www.ahuka.com/other/partition.html


This one says, "I cannot think of why I would want to use more than one
primary partition on a single drive". He also says that, "only one can be
active at any one time. The other primary partition(s) are hidden." He
obviously was confusing "active" and "hidden".


> Separately, I've read statements that XP (and presumably Vista) has no
> problem at all with multiple, active primary partitions, though FDISK
> doesn't let you do that. I'm not sure it matters either way.


I don't think Windows itself ever cares how many partitions are active.
This designation is important only to the boot process BEFORE any OS is
loaded. Disk Management allows us to change the designation, and shows us
the status, but does not use the information in any way that I know of. But
marking a partition Active simply changes one bit in the hard drive's
partition table so that the startup process (long before we ever see the
menu to select from Vista or a Legacy OS) knows where to look for the
operative boot sector. It might be possible to set more than one primary
partition active by using a disk editor, but I don't know what effect that
would have; I suspect that the boot process would simply use the first
active one and ignore the other designations.


>> I know almost nothing about hidden partitions; I've never used them. I
>> have almost no experience with multi-boot systems other than the one
>> built into NT and Vista versions of Windows, but I've been using that for
>> about 10 years (since Win95/NT4.0). I have not used System Restore,
>> although many of my friends say they have often been life-savers, so I
>> haven't experienced the "lost restore point" problems that I've often
>> seen reported.

>
> Business and Ultimate keep file histories though, and that's what I don't
> want to lose. I don't much care about restore points themselves, but file
> histories are great to have.
>
>>
>> RC



I hope all this helps "dr d". We haven't heard back from him since his
original post. :^{

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)


>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:eYv8o0IjHHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> So just to be clear: you're saying this forcing of dynamic volumes only
>>> comes into play after you already have three primary volumes? If so,
>>> that should affect relatively few people, right? I think most people
>>> organize their disks in the way you described in the second paragraph:
>>> one primary, one extended, and a bunch of logical drives within the
>>> extended, which I take it is also not affected by this. Please correct
>>> me if I'm not getting this right.
>>>
>>> That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to
>>> a new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a primary
>>> for the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before getting to
>>> data volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't found it.
>>>
>>> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
>>> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true), that it
>>> might offer a way to get around XP's penchant for destroying Vista's
>>> restore points, but it's too complicated and I don't know if it would
>>> work. I know some third-party managers work with hidden volumes to solve
>>> this problem, but I don't want to go back to them.
>>>
>>> I was thinking that Vista's volume would normally be marked active, but
>>> if you needed to boot into XP, you could make Vista inactive and XP
>>> active, therefore rendering Vista invisible to XP. Maybe. Of course,
>>> you'd have to be careful about the shifting drive letters, which is
>>> where it gets complicated.
>>>
>>> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi, dr d.
>>>>
>>>> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
>>>> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
>>>> have
>>>> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
>>>> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>>>>
>>>> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition,
>>>> plus an
>>>> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into
>>>> multiple
>>>> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and
>>>> put
>>>> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
>>>> BCD
>>>> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
>>>> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
>>>> versions
>>>> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete
>>>> and
>>>> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often
>>>> changed. I
>>>> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
>>>> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I
>>>> think we
>>>> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3
>>>> primary
>>>> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
>>>> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical
>>>> drive
>>>> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
>>>> the
>>>> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and
>>>> run
>>>> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
>>>> dangerous -
>>>> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
>>>> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a
>>>> list
>>>> of the commands available.
>>>>
>>>> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead
>>>> of
>>>> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>>>>
>>>> RC
>>>>
>>>> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>>>>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>>>>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>>>>> fourth partition?


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-03-2007
Milhouse Van Houten
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
"R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:ejPdZ4YjHHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> This latest revision discusses dynamic versus basic disks, and it further
> blurs the distinction between "partition" and "volume". :>( In my
> opinion, we should always say "System Partition", since only a primary
> partition can serve as a System Partition, and saying "System Volume",
> while not wrong, invistes confusion. But we also should always use the
> phrase "boot volume", rather than "boot partition", since either kind of
> "volume" - primary partition or logical drive - can serve as the boot
> volume.


According to that article, the word "volume" should be used instead of
"partition" when dynamic disks are involved. I wish them luck with that,
since most people use the terms (along with "drive") interchangeably, and no
one should use the word "volume" expecting the audience to catch such an
inference. I know I'll forget this distinction myself by the next paragraph.

> And at least one statement in the KB article is wrong: It says that the
> System Partition is always on Drive 0; my current System Partition is on
> my Disk 1. This can vary depending on settings in CMOS.


I suspect this is due to advancements in the BIOS -- it may not always have
been possible to boot from a second drive.

>> I think I'm misreading you here, as you can't mean 15GB. My system
>> partition is 512MB, with only about 50-75MB of that used (the majority
>> for stuff not related to the OS), and I recall from the beta that Setup
>> (boot-from-the-DVD style) always stated that it required about 435MB (it
>> varied from build to build) on the system partition to install,
>> presumably for the temporary WinPE setup environment, which it absolutely
>> needed to have on the system volume. I remember having to scramble a
>> couple times to clear up a few MBs of space. In the future, I'm just
>> going to make it 1GB, since I bet the next beta won't fit.
>>
>> But it's not 15GB. We have to be talking about two slightly different
>> things.

>
> Yes, it's GB. I'm sure it's overkill, now that the beta is over. But
> during the beta, I tried several times to upgrade to the newest build and
> it always failed because there was not enough space on "the system drive",
> or some such ambiguous phrase that left me wondering whether Vista Setup
> meant the System Partitiion or the Boot Volume - or some other "drive".
> I'm still not sure what the minimum size for the System Partition would be
> to "upgrade" to Vista; I've always had to do a clean install, because I've
> NEVER got an upgrade to work. :>{


OK, that must explain it: UPGRADE. I read you before to mean any Vista
install, but you're referring to upgrades of one kind or other -- something
I never did, not to XP and especially not to Vista (which was not
recommended because of beta-on-beta issues). I know for sure that a clean
install of Vista only requires that 435MB (give or take) figure free on the
system volume. When you don't have that much available, Vista setup tells
you exactly what it needs, otherwise it's pretty much a secret and Setup
just works.

As for the boot partition, if you're short there it'll also balk. I don't
recall the exact number it needs, but it's smaller than a lot of people
think, something in the 6GB to 7GB range. Not that anyone should have a
partition/volume/drive/disk/makeupanewword that small.

> operative boot sector. It might be possible to set more than one primary
> partition active by using a disk editor, but I don't know what effect that
> would have; I suspect that the boot process would simply use the first
> active one and ignore the other designations.


I'm not sure either. I think it's also doable with third-party partition
tools like PM.

> I hope all this helps "dr d". We haven't heard back from him since his
> original post. :^{


He's probably off doctoring somewhere.


>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
>
>>> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eYv8o0IjHHA.4704@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> So just to be clear: you're saying this forcing of dynamic volumes only
>>>> comes into play after you already have three primary volumes? If so,
>>>> that should affect relatively few people, right? I think most people
>>>> organize their disks in the way you described in the second paragraph:
>>>> one primary, one extended, and a bunch of logical drives within the
>>>> extended, which I take it is also not affected by this. Please correct
>>>> me if I'm not getting this right.
>>>>
>>>> That's the way I've always done it as well, but as I'm about to move to
>>>> a new drive I've been mulling over any reasons to also go with a
>>>> primary for the OS volumes after the small "C" system volume (before
>>>> getting to data volumes, that is), and if there is a reason, I haven't
>>>> found it.
>>>>
>>>> For a minute, I was thinking that if non-active primary partitions are
>>>> supposedly invisible (I've read it but don't know if it's true), that
>>>> it might offer a way to get around XP's penchant for destroying Vista's
>>>> restore points, but it's too complicated and I don't know if it would
>>>> work. I know some third-party managers work with hidden volumes to
>>>> solve this problem, but I don't want to go back to them.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that Vista's volume would normally be marked active, but
>>>> if you needed to boot into XP, you could make Vista inactive and XP
>>>> active, therefore rendering Vista invisible to XP. Maybe. Of course,
>>>> you'd have to be careful about the shifting drive letters, which is
>>>> where it gets complicated.
>>>>
>>>> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hi, dr d.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the
>>>>> beta
>>>>> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but
>>>>> I have
>>>>> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
>>>>> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>>>>>
>>>>> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition,
>>>>> plus an
>>>>> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and
>>>>> put
>>>>> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP;
>>>>> the BCD
>>>>> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
>>>>> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
>>>>> versions
>>>>> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete
>>>>> and
>>>>> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often
>>>>> changed. I
>>>>> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
>>>>> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I
>>>>> think we
>>>>> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3
>>>>> primary
>>>>> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
>>>>> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical
>>>>> drive
>>>>> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization
>>>>> of the
>>>>> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and
>>>>> run
>>>>> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
>>>>> dangerous -
>>>>> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
>>>>> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a
>>>>> list
>>>>> of the commands available.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead
>>>>> of
>>>>> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> RC
>>>>>
>>>>> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>>>>>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>>>>>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>>>>>> fourth partition?

>



Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2007
Milhouse Van Houten
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
Breaking off on a different tangent here, I found something very interesting
and somewhat puzzling in Vista about this very issue.

As I understood the discussion below, Vista's GUI Disk Management console
now requires you to create three primary partitions before you can create an
extended partition, and I confirmed that to be the case. I haven't the
slightest idea why they made that change, however, particularly since it can
wreak havoc later with your drive lettering, since the second and third
primary partitions on the first drive will fall AFTER all of the logical
drives in the extended partition! It's nuts.

But anyway, this is where my experience parts with what's below: the fourth
volume I created, which was an extended with logical drives within it, was
NOT dynamic. I was never even asked to go dynamic, it's a straight-up basic
volume just like all the others. How did I get away with this?

Further, where is this rule described elsewhere on the Internet? I couldn't
find anything beyond the information about the three primaries, nothing
about a dynamic being forced.

"R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi, dr d.
>
> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
> have
> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>
> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus
> an
> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and put
> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
> BCD
> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
> versions
> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete and
> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed.
> I
> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think
> we
> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>
> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
> the
> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and run
> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
> dangerous -
> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a list
> of the commands available.
>
> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>> fourth partition?

>


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2007
R. C. White, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Partitioning
Hi, Milhouse.

> Vista's GUI Disk Management console now requires you to create three
> primary partitions before you can create an extended partition,


Yes, but...we can use DiskPart.exe to create an extended partition, even if
there are NO primary partitions on that HD.

> it can wreak havoc later with your drive lettering, since the second and
> third primary partitions on the first drive will fall AFTER all of the
> logical drives in the extended partition!


But we can use Disk Management to change any letter that we want - except
the System Partition and Boot Volume, of course.

My system has "just growed", like Topsy, over the years, and my logical
Drive M: comes before logical Drive H: on my 3rd HD. Disk 0's partitions
are, in sequence, G: (primary), F:, T:, U: and I:. As previously discussed,
I always use just one primary and one extended partition on each HD, with
the extended partition using all the space except for what the primary uses.
Thus, I've never had occasion to create a primary following the extended
partition, but I have no doubt that DM could do it - and assign it any
unused letter I like. Letters do NOT have to be assigned in sequence,
either chronological or geographical.

> the fourth volume I created, which was an extended with logical drives
> within it, was NOT dynamic
> How did I get away with this?


I don't know. As I said, my experience with dynamic volumes is very
limited. Before Vista, my understanding was that dynamic volumes were kind
of like marriages: very easy to get into; very hard to get out of - and
subject to many surprises in actual operation. I've not needed them, so
I've shied away from them.

> Further, where is this rule described elsewhere on the Internet? I
> couldn't find anything beyond the information about the three primaries,
> nothing about a dynamic being forced.


During the beta, a few of us complained about the lack of notice. We got a
good reply from a Microsoft team member, but it disappeared - at least from
my computer - after the beta ended and my access to those newsgroups went
away. Perhaps there is an explanation - on MSDN, maybe - but we just
haven't found it yet.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uF7oUmNkHHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Breaking off on a different tangent here, I found something very
> interesting and somewhat puzzling in Vista about this very issue.
>
> As I understood the discussion below, Vista's GUI Disk Management console
> now requires you to create three primary partitions before you can create
> an extended partition, and I confirmed that to be the case. I haven't the
> slightest idea why they made that change, however, particularly since it
> can wreak havoc later with your drive lettering, since the second and
> third primary partitions on the first drive will fall AFTER all of the
> logical drives in the extended partition! It's nuts.
>
> But anyway, this is where my experience parts with what's below: the
> fourth volume I created, which was an extended with logical drives within
> it, was NOT dynamic. I was never even asked to go dynamic, it's a
> straight-up basic volume just like all the others. How did I get away with
> this?
>
> Further, where is this rule described elsewhere on the Internet? I
> couldn't find anything beyond the information about the three primaries,
> nothing about a dynamic being forced.
>
> "R. C. White, MVP" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
> news:uv4sjeHiHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi, dr d.
>>
>> That's how it works in Vista. It caught me by surprise during the beta
>> because I've used multiple partitions for years. And I still do, but I
>> have
>> to get there by a different path these days. The details are in Disk
>> Management's Help file, so I'll just "hit the high spots" here.
>>
>> My typical drive configuration is a single small primary partition, plus
>> an
>> extended partition covering the rest of the HD and divided into multiple
>> logical drives. This way, I can set the primary partition Active and put
>> only the startup files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini for WinXP; the
>> BCD
>> and bootmgr.exe for Vista) on it. Then I can divide up the extended
>> partition into volumes where I can put each of the several Windows
>> versions
>> I typically run, plus larger volumes for apps and data. I can delete and
>> recreate volumes as my needs change - and they have quite often changed.
>> I
>> never used dynamic volumes until Vista, and still have only slight
>> familiarity with them. But Vista is big on dynamic volumes, and I think
>> we
>> will be, too, after we climb the learning curve.
>>
>> In the meantime, Vista's Disk Management will create the first 3 primary
>> partitions as in WinXP and prior. When we try to create the 4th, it
>> automatically creates the extended partition and the first logical drive
>> within that partition. If we want to insist on our own organization of
>> the
>> disk, we will have to open an Administrator:Command Prompt window and run
>> the DiskPart.exe shell. This is a very powerful - and therefore
>> dangerous -
>> utility (much different from the DiskPart command in the WinXP Recover
>> Console). If you start that shell and then type Help, you will see a
>> list
>> of the commands available.
>>
>> I just wish Microsoft had given us more notice of the change, instead of
>> waiting until we stumbled on it ourselves and got confused.
>>
>> RC
>>
>> "dr d" <dharmuth@tcsn.net> wrote in message
>> news:1177625119.245179.55230@c18g2000prb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>I am attempting to partition a drive using Vista's Disk Management and
>>> can create three volumes, but when I try to create a fourth, it tries
>>> to convert to dynamic from basic. What else can I do to create a
>>> fourth partition?


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
disk partitioning TS Mathews microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 3 04-04-2007 22:08
PARTITIONING VISTA WILLIAM ALBURY microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 30 03-01-2007 14:51
Partitioning Question Marcus microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 6 03-01-2007 03:46
Partitioning under Vista =?Utf-8?B?VW5jbGUgS28=?= microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 38 02-28-2007 23:24
Vista Disk Partitioning Jeff Gaines microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 17 02-28-2007 17:52




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49.




Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now

Vistaheads.com is part of the Heads Network. See also XPHeads.com , Win7Heads.com and Win8Heads.com.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120