PC Review
Forums
Newsgroups
Windows XP
Windows XP Setup
Why four primary partitions in the nt family
Forums
Newsgroups
Windows XP
Windows XP Setup
Why four primary partitions in the nt family
![]() |
Why four primary partitions in the nt family |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
How did Microsoft arrive at the quantity of four for
primary partitions (or three and one extended)? The need for one is obvious. But why the jump to four? |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi
The maximum number of Primary partitions is limited to 3 - for the purpose of dual/triple booting. The one extended partition can then be divided up into data partitions -- Will Denny MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User Please reply to the News Groups "Stephen M Jones" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1cc6f01c45306$68d930f0$a101280a@phx.gbl... | How did Microsoft arrive at the quantity of four for | primary partitions (or three and one extended)? The need | for one is obvious. But why the jump to four? |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Stephen M Jones" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > How did Microsoft arrive at the quantity of four for > primary partitions (or three and one extended)? The > need for one is obvious. But why the jump to four? This has nothing to do with the NT family, and I'm not even sure if it was a Microsoft decision. I know that the 4-slot partition table was a well established standard at least as early as DOS 3.0, which is when I began hacking boot records and partition tables. I recall reading somewhere that in the early days of hard disks, people would need to multiboot DOS and CP/M, which at the time had more software apps than Microsoft. Back in those days there were lots of alternative OS's, and the partition table was standardized so people could multiboot up to four of them. I believe the "extended" partition type was an afterthought when it was realized four might not be enough. |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Stephen M Jones wrote:
> How did Microsoft arrive at the quantity of four for > primary partitions (or three and one extended)? The need > for one is obvious. But why the jump to four? The boot sector definition is ancient history, far predating the NT family of operating systems. The only thing funky about NT/2K/XP is that you can't boot these OSes from an extended partition, only from a primary partition. If you want to boot more than four NT-like partitions, you need a third-party manager like BootItNG that supports partition hiding. And no matter what the MBR says, NT-like OSes look at the disk directly and get upset if you slide the partition around (but they don't stay upset for long). The new 64 bit Windows OSes have a new boot setup. -- Kent W. England, Microsoft MVP for Windows Security |
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Rate This Thread | |
|
|

Main Page 

