Talk:Boot sector

message: This should be merged with Master boot record. 71.250.15.252 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 

message: I removed this sentence:
Because of this vulnerability, computer security experts tend to recommend that booting from devices other than the one containing the installed operating system, such as removable media devices (e.g. floppy disk devices, CD-ROMs, and USB flash drives), be disabled in normal operation via the BIOS setup utility, and only re-enabled on those specific occasions when booting from such devices is actually required.
This fails WP:WEASEL, as it invokes a "voice of authority" that isn't attributable to a reliable source.  If someone wants to reinsert this with a sourcable attribution, go for it...  -/- Warren 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it is a shame that concern for policies disable the most important piece of information in this article.  As long as real life, good knowledge has to make way for some guru signature, we got the wrong set of priorities in WP. yamaplos 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Real life good knowledge" - according to whom? You? I know it can be frustrating sometimes, with the feeling that this place is really a lot stuffier than both it needs to and claims to be with all their seemingly bureaucratic policies, but try and understand why the policies exist. BlueFenixReborn (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed sentence 

message: I've proposed merging bootblock into this article, because I think they're two names for the same thing - boot sector seems to be a PC-centric term, whereas bootblock is used on other systems (VMS, Amiga, etc.).—greenrd 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: greenrd, I agree! I believe any internal links to bootblock should be redirected to this page, and the article expanded. This name confusion happens to have been on my mind a lot lately, as a matter of fact, I'm trying to find out WHEN the term sector took over for what many had used the term block for in computing fields! (BTW, I noticed your minor edit to a page I've spent a great deal of time on recently, Master_boot_record, so that's why I came here.) See my recent edits to Disk_sector for example, on this idea. Daniel B. Sedory 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: [Note: I mistakenly placed this section here instead of at Talk:Volume boot record, but I'll leave it here, since it might be helpful to those interested in GRUB and VBRs.]
I just finished 'undoing' an addition by User:Smwikicn2007 [at Volume boot record] in which he called the VBR a virtual MBR on non-partitioned devices. Later, this made me wonder what might have led him to make such a statement. Could it be the fact that GRUB (often found on computers running Linux) can actually be set up to act as either a Volume boot record or a partitioned device's Master boot record?  If so, this may have led him to believe that any VBR code could also be thought of as an MBR on bootable devices that do not have a partition, such as floppy diskettes.
GRUB's 512-byte stage1 contents can perform either function, because it was not only created with executable code meant to run correctly after being loaded into memory at 0x7C00 by a master boot record, but also contains the usual 64-byte partition table that many utility programs expect to see in an MBR; especially those on hard disks with a bootable Microsoft operating system. Daniel B. Sedory 07:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRUB as an MBR or VBR ''vs'' ordinary Volume Boot Records 

message: I have added a dubious tag to the sentence attempting to differentiate between boot sectors and boot blocks. I have seen both terms used for both platforms cited and it appears to me that this is a distinction that doesn't really exist. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no one came up with any references so I've gone ahead and deleted it. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The only sources I could find, that are even halfway reliable, discuss "boot blocks" in the context of a BIOS, namely it is an immutable ROM that allows the BIOS to be re-flashed in the event of flash corruption. Judging from these sources, the term is not related to mass storage devices, and hence is off-topic when discussing boot sectors in this context. I have basically reversed the merge that was conducted in 2007 (as discussed above). Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice this until now when I cam looking for something else.  I'm now aware of any such distinction and if there is one it is purely PC specific.  The very first place I looked found a reference for boot block referring to a disk sector .  I notice that boot block is currently redirecting to BIOS which seems highly dubious to me. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "boot block" 

message: How prevalent is boot sector infection in March, 2010?  I remember it used to be a biggie in the days we booted from floppies, but nowadays participating in a massive USB-Flash-based educational project, Sugar-on-a-stick, I am concerned we are putting our users at risk if their sticks get infected and then infect computers wholesale, but I cannot find reliable information either way. 
Thanks if someone can update the article to show current risks, if any.  yamaplos 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its still there, albeit it may not be quite as visible as it once was.  Boot sector viruses became less of an issue post Windows 95 so perhaps boot sectors have dropped off the radar as far as the average user is concerned but they are still of vital importance.  Most of it hasn't even altered that much - it needs to remain the same for the sake of IBM compatibility. The only real change has been evolution in supported boot media - first CD-ROMs and now USB drives, although those are more BIOS changes that changes to the actual boot sectors themselves. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How current? 

message: This article is PC-compatible specific and implies that all computers behave the same way and run some form of a Microsoft operating system.  Most non-PC systems handle boot from disk very differently than a typical PC.  Can we make this sort of information clear to the reader as well?
Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Booting does what you wish, there are too many articles for this fascinating topic. –89.204.153.227 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too PC-centric