"Timothy Daniels" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cYOdnelqkrFQ5d7fRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the clarification of logical drives being sections of an
> extended partition.
Well BAR has some info incorrect:
BAR said:
>> Windows XP supports three file systems NTFS, FAT32 and FAT [the latter 2
>> being introduced with earlier Windows systems].
FAT (File Allocation table) is just the acromyn for the different size
possibilities using FAT. They are FAT12, FAT16, and FAT32, IOWs, there isn't
a common size called just FAT, and FAT32.
BAR said:
>> FAT - only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
>> Windows versions only]
He means FAT16, which can only be installed on volumes up to 2Gs (referenced
below with "limitation" links).
BAR said:
>> Windows XP supports up to four partitions per hard disk.
This is somewhat wrong, XP on any one hard drive, can support only four
*primary*
partitions at a time, but if one e.g. had 3 primary, then they can have
more logical drives in an extended partition. But he does
contradict this statement in the rest of his post, with the
extended/logical drive info.
BAR said:
>> FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
>> Second Edition]
Again, this is wrong, but I am guessing he is stating how XP (as well as
2000), in itself
using its installation utility, only will format, and install on a 32g
FAT32 partition. FAT32 in itself, and handle volumes up to 2000gigs. But XP
can install on a partition larger than 32gigs, if one formats (ala a 98
bootdisk) that partition to a larger size, before using the XP install disk.
As far as real size limits using the OSes mentioned, it would be a 127gig
(binary) max partition.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006
Here are a few references to size limitations using the various file
formats:
Size Limitations in NTFS and FAT File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_fil_tdrn.asp
FAT Sizes: FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partSizes-c.html
>
> But also keep in mind that an OS can be loaded from a logical
> drive. The "active" partition (which must be a Primary partition)
> must contain the boot manager and loader, but the boot menu
> can "point to" a logical drive (i.e. partition) from which the OS is
> to be loaded. So your phrase "from which the computer will boot"
> does not necessarily mean "from which the OS will be loaded",
> but rather "where the boot manager and loader are to be found".
This is correct in the context you use, but you left out what BAR stated in
the whole scheme, which was:
>> A primary partition is one from which one can boot up an Operating
>> System.
This is true, since he said *an* operating system, as you have to have a
Primary drive to do so, which will contain the bootloader. But the
explanation of how it works from there on is true from your point. But I
will address one other thing BAR stated, which again is untrue in its
context
>> Logical Drives are similar to primary partitions in that they are
>> individually formatted with a file system and assigned a drive letter:
>> thus
>> an extended partition can have an unlimited number of Logical Drives each
>> with its own drive letter, none of the Logical drives is bootable.
Logical drives are bootable, or else dual-boot scenarios would not be
possible. He just needs to use the context correctly, or else taken as it is
written would negate bootable logical drives. IOWs, if you have a dual-boot
setup (Primary/logical), you can select after the BIOS post, to what OS you
want to boot, hence it is bootable; it simply doesn't contain the
bootloader, which is at the beginning of the Primary partition.