Talk:Comparison of boot loaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Delete: Ambigous or Wrong 2 Shouldn't this be called comaprison of bootloaders 3 The ability to boot another boot loader 4 Grub Legacy or Grub 2.0 ?

[edit] Delete: Ambigous or Wrong

Bootloaders such GRUB cannot load windows - instead they chainload to NTLDR or some other bootloader capable of handling Windows. The same practice applies in reverse. In essence there should be no 'No' option at all, and this simply be replaced by 'Must Chainload', either that or loaders such as GRUB should be changed from 'Yes' to 'No'. This page is so ambigous (or wrong) I suggest it be deleted and either restarted or replaced with a 'List of bootloaders' page. LaudanumCoda 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Boot Camp is not bootloader217.174.108.179 11:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add if a bootloader support EFI or not --Scls19fr 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We should restart this page.

[edit] Shouldn't this be called comaprison of bootloaders

It should be called "Comparison of" not "List of" since it is a comparison and "boot loader" is the prevailing term not "bootloader". The correct title of this article should be Comparison of boot loaders. -- Gudeldar 13:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ability to boot another boot loader

Can windows boot manager really boot windows nt/2k/xp/2k3??? I think it calls the NTLDR to load them.

How can GRUB boot a Windows NT system (directly)??

I think the entry should be removed if the boot loader calls another boot loader like Windows Boot Manager calls NTLDR, GRUB calls Windows Boot Manager...

[edit] Grub Legacy or Grub 2.0 ?

This comparison should distinguish between the two distinct bootloaders from the Grub project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.38.222 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)