Unlimited Primaries Problem

[Turps]

BIBM 1.09. 500GB internal hard drive.

Trying to have 6 primaries consisting of:
1 Bootit EMBRM
2 NTFS 50GB for W7
3 NTFS 50GB for W7
4 NTFS 50GB for W7
5 NTFS 40 GB for data
6 Extended for rest of disk containing 3 NTFS volumes of data

BIBM installed on drive with “yes” to Do you want to enable support for more than 4 primary partitions?
This setting is confirmed by the Limit Primaries option in settings being greyed out.

The problem arises when creating the boot menu. For example the boot menu for primary 2, the first NTFS 50 GB for W7. The boot field shows all the partitions (except Bootit) and I select partition 2 (the first W7).

Then I want to hide partitions 3, 4, and 6 (extended). In the MBR Details column there is only space for four items. I double click on 0) and insert Bootit, then similarly 2 in 1), 3 in 2) and hide it, and 4 in 3) and hide it. There is nowhere to enter partitions 5 and 6 (to be hidden).

Please can someone tell me I am doing wrong?

Also, must an extended partition be the last, or may I have another non-extended NTFS partition after it (for data)?

[Brian K]

Turps,

With Unlimited Primaries you don't need to Hide partitions. Just don't put them in MBR Details. For example, in the Boot Edit for primary 2, just put primary 2 and primary 5 in the MBR Details. Boot that item and you will find you only have 2 partitions visible. In Disk Management the other partitions will appear as unallocated space.

[DrTeeth]

Turps,

That is a limitation of the MBR system. Only four primary partitions (or 3 plus and extended) can be visible at once per hard disk - so there is only room for four primaries in the MBR table.

I only 'hide' as a temporary measure - for a permanent hide, I leave a partition out of the MBR. When installing an OS (windows especially) I leave all MBR entries empty - some OSs can still 'see' hidden partitions IIRC.

Regards

DrTeeth

[Turps]

Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that they wouldn’t!).

Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically filled in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC, and they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to hide as required.

With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest are automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.

Thanks
Turps

[Bob Coleman]

Turps wrote:
> Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that
> they wouldn’t!).
>
> Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that
> with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically filled
> in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC, and
> they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to hide
> as required.
>
> With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest are
> automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.
>
> Thanks
> Turps

And as implied in one of the responses above, leaving partitions out of the MBR gives greater assurance than hiding that the partitions will not be "seen" by the current OS.

[mjnelson99]

My own experience is that "hiding" just does not work in
NTFS Windows.

Go into Computer Management & I'll bet you will see all the
"hidden" stuff there. The hidden or unallocated does not
usually show in Computer.

The manufacture's restore partition is hidden and Win 7 X64
& X86 does see it from Computer Management.
Mary

On 7/27/2012 1:37 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> Turps wrote:
>> Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that
>> they wouldn't!).
>>
>> Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that
>> with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically filled
>> in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC, and
>> they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to hide
>> as required.
>>
>> With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest are
>> automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Turps
>
> And as implied in one of the responses above, leaving partitions out of the MBR gives greater assurance than hiding that the partitions will not be "seen" by the current OS.
>
>

[TeraByte Support]

See #5 http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=517

If there was a drive letter assigned to it, hiding (changing the file system
ID) won't make a difference, that started in Win2K. You have to remove the
drive letter.

"mjnelson99" wrote in message news:2848@public.bootitbm...

My own experience is that "hiding" just does not work in
NTFS Windows.

Go into Computer Management & I'll bet you will see all the
"hidden" stuff there. The hidden or unallocated does not
usually show in Computer.

The manufacture's restore partition is hidden and Win 7 X64
& X86 does see it from Computer Management.
Mary

On 7/27/2012 1:37 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> Turps wrote:
>> Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that
>> they wouldn't!).
>>
>> Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that
>> with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically
>> filled
>> in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC, and
>> they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to
>> hide
>> as required.
>>
>> With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest
>> are
>> automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Turps
>
> And as implied in one of the responses above, leaving partitions out of
> the MBR gives greater assurance than hiding that the partitions will not
> be "seen" by the current OS.
>
>

[mjnelson99]

I have 3 partitions w/o a drive letter including the
manufacturer's restore partition. Two small ones do not have
a drive letter and all show up in Disk Management but they
ARE there. There is no data on the 2 small unlabeled partitions.


On 7/27/2012 2:53 PM, TeraByte Support wrote:
> See #5 http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=517
>
> If there was a drive letter assigned to it, hiding (changing the file system
> ID) won't make a difference, that started in Win2K. You have to remove the
> drive letter.
>
> "mjnelson99" wrote in message news:2848@public.bootitbm...
>
> My own experience is that "hiding" just does not work in
> NTFS Windows.
>
> Go into Computer Management & I'll bet you will see all the
> "hidden" stuff there. The hidden or unallocated does not
> usually show in Computer.
>
> The manufacture's restore partition is hidden and Win 7 X64
> & X86 does see it from Computer Management.
> Mary
>
> On 7/27/2012 1:37 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
>> Turps wrote:
>>> Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that
>>> they wouldn't!).
>>>
>>> Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that
>>> with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically
>>> filled
>>> in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC, and
>>> they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to
>>> hide
>>> as required.
>>>
>>> With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest
>>> are
>>> automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Turps
>>
>> And as implied in one of the responses above, leaving partitions out of
>> the MBR gives greater assurance than hiding that the partitions will not
>> be "seen" by the current OS.
>>
>>
>
>

[TeraByte Support]

yes, they will be there, because they are in the MBR.

The hide option on a partition, prior to 2K or after and including 2K for a
partition that has always been hidden from Windows, will cause a hidden
partition to not be accessed (no volume available - even when in the MBR).
Once it's been introduced, it remembers it if a partition exists there (with
any file system id) at the same place and size (and will make the volume
available even if no drive letter), at least until something like the disk
signature is changed or it's location altered. That's that "detected
hardware changes" you used to get after resizing and such on the first
reboot.



"mjnelson99" wrote in message news:2850@public.bootitbm...

I have 3 partitions w/o a drive letter including the
manufacturer's restore partition. Two small ones do not have
a drive letter and all show up in Disk Management but they
ARE there. There is no data on the 2 small unlabeled partitions.


On 7/27/2012 2:53 PM, TeraByte Support wrote:
> See #5 http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=517
>
> If there was a drive letter assigned to it, hiding (changing the file
> system
> ID) won't make a difference, that started in Win2K. You have to remove
> the
> drive letter.
>
> "mjnelson99" wrote in message news:2848@public.bootitbm...
>
> My own experience is that "hiding" just does not work in
> NTFS Windows.
>
> Go into Computer Management & I'll bet you will see all the
> "hidden" stuff there. The hidden or unallocated does not
> usually show in Computer.
>
> The manufacture's restore partition is hidden and Win 7 X64
> & X86 does see it from Computer Management.
> Mary
>
> On 7/27/2012 1:37 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
>> Turps wrote:
>>> Thanks Brian & Dr Teeth. Your answers work (not that I thought that
>>> they wouldn't!).
>>>
>>> Until now, also with BING, I have used limited primaries. It seems that
>>> with limited primaries, in Boot Edit, the MBR table is automatically
>>> filled
>>> in. I have just tried adding a new boot item on a limited primary PC,
>>> and
>>> they are all showing in the MBR table. So seeing them there, I used to
>>> hide
>>> as required.
>>>
>>> With unlimited primaries just inserting the ones required and the rest
>>> are
>>> automatically hidden is much easier, now I know how.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Turps
>>
>> And as implied in one of the responses above, leaving partitions out of
>> the MBR gives greater assurance than hiding that the partitions will not
>> be "seen" by the current OS.
>>
>>
>
>

[Bob Coleman]

Turps wrote:

...

>
> Also, must an extended partition be the last, or may I have another
> non-extended NTFS partition after it (for data)?

I don't think anyone ever answered this question. Definitely with unlimited primaries, an extended partition does not have to be last. I have three partitions followed by an extended followed by another partition.

I suspect that an extended would not have to be last with limited primaries either, but I don't know that I've ever done that.