Talk:EFI system partition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Needs extensive updating[edit]

As with any technology, the information on this has changed rapidly. Would someone volunteer to update various sections, especially the GRUB2/Linux discussion. Thanks MxBuck (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No ill effects?[edit]

"On Apple's Intel-based Macintosh computers, the EFI partition can be deleted without ill effect"

The system wll boot, but "without ill effects" is wrong. This is used as a location to place executables for the EFI system to perform firmware updates. See and —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:37, 12 April 2009

Verified and applied. the link has gone dead, so didn't include that. Hungry Charlie (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Which file-system should the partition be formatted to (FAT, UFS, EXT)?

Stlman (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

FAT. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Windows XP 64-bit edition" refers to Windows for IA64, not x86-64[edit]

Quote from the article: "On Windows XP 64-Bit Edition and later, access to the EFI System partition is obtained by running the mountvol /s command."

This is actually pretty obscure information and not interesting in general, instead misleading. "64-bit Edition" refers to Windows for the IA64 architecture. This command will do nothing on x86-64 architecture Windows. Executing "mountvol /?" still confusingly shows the "/s" command, but the full documentation is clear:

Quote: "Mounts the EFI system partition on the specified drive. Available on Itanium-based computers only."

To obtain access to this partition on x86-64 Windows, it can be assigned a drive letter in the Windows "diskpart" command line tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! Please be welcome to edit the article, providing appropriate references at the same time. Thank you. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sense of paragraph appears to be backward[edit]

"Despite the fact that the UEFI specification requires MBR partition tables to be fully supported,[3] some UEFI firmware implementations immediately switch to the BIOS-based CSM booting upon detecting certain types of partition table on the boot disk, effectively preventing UEFI booting to be performed from EFI System partitions contained on MBR-partitioned disks.[4]"

The wording should likely mean that if both an MBR and EFI System partition exist on disk, the EFI System partition should be preferred, and in (broken) some cases, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Collins (talkcontribs) 02:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing in out, got the wording tweaked a bit so it's more clear. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Why?" question not addressed[edit]

I just read this article, but nowhere does it address the question of why EFI system partitions are any better than boot sectors. In other words, why the change of boot paradigm? – voidxor 02:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)