Partitions

A

Andy C

How many partitions can I have on a hard drive using Vista Ultimate please.

I like to have Vista, XP, data, videos, kids data in seperate partitions for
ease of backup.

Does anyone know of the maximum number of partitions allowed under Vista?


Sandy
 
M

Max

Based on the alphabet (not counting any removable drives), 24--A and B are
reserved for floppies.
Theoretically, a maximum of four primary partitions, one of which can be an
extended partition, which can contain 60 logical partitions for a maximum of
64.
 
M

Monster

I am interested to know how many hard drives are supported within Vista as XP
only supported 4 drives. I have built a tower with 5 hard drives with 4Gb ram
and 4Gig processor. I have had a work round in place with XP but not really
satisfactory. I have plenty of on-board connections so in theory I could have
8 drives as I could have two on each channel (cable)
 
C

cvp

There's no obvious limit. Even when you run out of letters you can
access them by mounting in an empty folder.

But there was no limit in XP either. Are you thinking of partitions per
drive?
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

I am interested to know how many hard drives are supported within Vista


There is no limit.

as XP
only supported 4 drives.



Not true. There was no limit there either.

Most motherboards can support only four ATA drives, and that may be
what's confusing you. But even with such a motherboard, you can add
other drives by using an ATA add-in card.


I have built a tower with 5 hard drives with 4Gb ram
 
P

Peter Foldes

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 ???

1 1/2 years after you answer the post. Where have you been ?
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

I will never understand people and their concept of Internet
Necromancy. Time on the internet is but a number, what is the difference
between answering a year later or 5 weeks later.



It's not a matter of "Internet Necromancy." If you answer a question a
year later, the person who asked it is very likely not here in the
newsgroup any more, or if he is here, is no longer interested in the
answer. Moreover anybody who was participating in the discussion has
almost certainly completely forgotten about it.

The fact that the internet is involved is irrelevant. This is no
different than if we meet in person, and I ask how "how was that movie
you saw last week," and a year later you reply "it was great, thanks."
A year later, it's highly unlikely that I would remember asking the
question, or if I remembered what the question was, or if I remembered
what the question was what the movie I was asking about was.

When does it become
inappropriate to answer and who determines that standard? :)


Nobody determines a standard, and there is no agreed-upon answer to
the question "When does it become inappropriate to answer." We all get
to decide for ourselves when it is that enough time has gone by that
the *reply* is irrelevant. Few, if any, people would not consider that
a year and a half is extremely inappropriate.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:37:27 +0100, RegisteredUser001





It's not a matter of "Internet Necromancy." If you answer a question a
year later, the person who asked it is very likely not here in the
newsgroup any more, or if he is here, is no longer interested in the
answer. Moreover anybody who was participating in the discussion has
almost certainly completely forgotten about it.

Worse, one's news provider might not keep old threads very long. Many
of the ancient original posts and the equally ancient replies are not
available on my server, and many others as well. So these new posts are
often meaningless.

It's exacerbated by the fact that a lot of people don't quote what
they're replying to. However, Registered User looks to be innocent of
that charge in this thread.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Worse, one's news provider might not keep old threads very long. Many
of the ancient original posts and the equally ancient replies are not
available on my server, and many others as well.



Right! And even if were available here, I wouldn't go to the trouble
of looking for it.

So these new posts are
often meaningless.



Worse than often, it's *usually* true.

It's exacerbated by the fact that a lot of people don't quote what
they're replying to. However, Registered User looks to be innocent of
that charge in this thread.


Yes and yes.
 
T

Tae Song

"RegisteredUser001" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
this is not true
I have 6 hard drives that can be seen in Vista SP2, when I try to add
more hard drives or even flash USB drives they mount but they have no
drive letter and thus cannot be accessed, when I try to view properties
of these drives it says "The Properties for this item are not available"
I believe the answer then is, Windows Vista is only capable of 6 hard
drives maximum (excluding cd/dvd floppy)


6 drives x 4 partition = 24 drive letters

One option is you can unassign a drive letter to mount a new device and put
letter back once you're done.

If the limitation you run into is lack of drive letters there is also the
option to mount storage devices as folders on one of the drives that has a
drive letter. Like what you do in Linux when you mount devices.

I don't understand why you would create that many partitions, anyway?

You simply pick a limit of 6 drives because you decide to create 4 partition
on each drive and run out of drive letters?

This is not a Windows limitation. It's a limitation created by poor choice
of options.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top