Talk:Windows Vista startup process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why "Windows Vista startup process"?[edit]

Any particular reason why this article is still referred to as being the "Windows Vista" boot process? It would seem misleading to identify the process this way. The article should be renamed the "Windows NT 6 family startup process", because that is the most accurate way to title it. mrivera1 (talk) 06:27, 06 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Or, "Windows 7" boot process. and the language ("..and windows vista, which is a member of Windows NT 6 family...") (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Or even just Windows startup process or Windows boot process and merge with any other articles that describe the older approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So how does this compare to windows 7?[edit]

Does anyone know where I could find a description of 7's startup process? If I had one I would go through the article and rewrite it to reflect that it covers win7 as well as vista. Universalss (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a bit confused[edit]

How exactly does this whole system differ from NTLDR? It just seems to me like they renamed the binary, changed the configuration file format, and made it compatible with EFI. Now, the last of those is rather significant, but does it really need a whole article to say "Windows Vista and Windows Longhorn Server will support booting from EFI?"—Kbolino 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the new scheme, the "loading" part of the process is handled by a separate file (winload.exe); besides requiring an obvious change of name (since what replaces NTLDR does not "load" any more), it opens wide arrays of new possibilities to branch to other things than just WinLoading, and does not require any more hacks like the use of chain-loading of variants of SetupLdr.bin to launch the recovery console, or the various /win9xxx flags. The design is an order of magnitude more clean. Antoinel 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the new boot process preclude chainloading a Vista partition? If so, why?

I do not understand the question. The new scheme, like the older, certainly can boot Vista (and even recent xp/2003) kernel directly from various partitions, and certainly can chain-load arbitrary boot records, including one that mimics the VBR from another partition. A different problem is to boot a volume which is not marked as active, something which has traditionnaly been difficult with MS booting programs. Antoinel 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the question was whether different boot loader can chainload Vista the same way as it does chainload older versions of MS Windows. And I guess that the answere depends on the particular implementation of chainloading - if it loads NTLDR or VBR. Pheeror (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apprently it does preclude chainloading (i.e. putting something else on the MBR). It is briefly mentioned here (found via )

It is certainly possible to boot Vista with a different code in the MBR that the one MS put without asking while installing the operating system. Of course the disk signature should be preserved, but again this is not a new requirement. Antoinel 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further rumour suggests you *might* be able to use something else on the MBR if you are not using BitLocker/TPM -

Fact is that with TPCA, the full content of the MBR is part of the chain of trust; so if one OS is in control of the TCPA chip, and registered the OS version of the MBR, it is now impossible to install any other software there without defeating the whole chain. There is nothing specific to Vista here. Antoinel 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

multi boot[edit]

i just bought a computer with vista in it. however, i also want xp in it as well. is there a way i can install xp, and still have vista work. it is my understanding that once you install an older operating system on top of a newer one, the newer one stops working. at least that was the case when i installed windows 2000 on top of xp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

  • It is possible, you can put another operating system on another partition. The basic idea is to set the destination partition as the active partition (using diskpart) so the boot loader is written to that one. Then you can use bcdedit to fix up the Vista partition. In order for vista to allow installing XP from it, you will have take ownership of %windir%\apppatch\sysmain.sdb and rename it. Then run the installer directly (i386\winnt32.exe).

It is possible (at least with BIOS systems) to use any third party bootmanager in the MBR (like XFDISK). By doing so the MBR resident bootloader(and bootmenu) is completely independent of all installed operating systems and may be restored any time later from floppy, USB or CD if one of the operating systems behaves bad and overwrites the MBR (Windows normally behaves bad, Linux askes where to put the booltoader(MBR or Partition); Partition would be the correct answer here. This is true for Ubuntu alternate CD or Debian installer; The 'graphical installers' of newer versions possibly behave as bad as Windows)). This also avoided to fiddle around with the new Vista's bootmanager. This worked for running Vista,XP and several Linuxes from a multiboot.ChristianKranich 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) graphical versions have an advanced tab for choosing where to place mbr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Startup process when Bitlocker enabled?[edit]

Can someone add Bitlocker related info? When Bitlocker is enabled, the MBR is verified and if its overwritten or modified by another OS, even a previous Windows version, Vista cries "data integrity compromised". Bitlocker's probably the chief reason Microsoft developed the Windows Boot Manager to replace NTLDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

removed content? re-add to article[edit]

i just found this in the history surely this should be in the article, as it would be useful to people looking for information on fixing issues, which is how i found the article to start with. Ktremain (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That was a tutorial, a tip not suitable for an encyclopedia, but the information is almost already there: bcdedit.exe. Maybe the paragraph can be enhanced, and maybe we can consider a wikiversity article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

32 bit vs 64 bit[edit]

If you are using say a Win7 PC to make a bootable win7 install USB stick for a new Win7 PC, you need a 32 bit or 64 bit bootsect.exe file depending on whether bootsect.exe is to execute on on a 32 bit or 64 bit PC to place the boot info on to the stick - refer this article. My question is: Does bootsect.exe then install code that is different for 32 bit and 64 bit systems based on whether bootsect.exe itself is 32 bit or 64 bit? Or is it that a 32 bit or 64 bit bootsect.exe will install boot code that doesn't care what it's going to boot - ie either a 32 or 64 bit bootsect.exe can install boot code that can boot either a 32 or 64 bit Win OS installer. Hope that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article to "Windows Boot Manager" / "BOOTMGR"[edit]

I am proposing that this article be renamed either to Windows Boot Manager or BOOTMGR (all caps to be in line with NTLDR) for the following reasons:

  • To better reflect the actual piece of software that this article is referring to, I refer to NTLDR as an example of how this article should be laid out.
  • To better reflect the fact that BOOTMGR currently handles boot loading for all Windows NT 6.x operating systems (so far includes Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and relevant Server and other off-shoot versions) and is not Windows Vista specific.

Thoughts and opinions?

King Arthur6687 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is not just about the moot manager. But also about the boot loader. Windows Boot manager and Windows Boot loader was once a unified thing. After Vista, they are separated. I agree that the word "Vista" in the title of the article is not appropriate. But we shouldn't change it to -only- boot manager. This will necessitate a separate article for boot loader.
Rather I suggest naming the article "Windows NT 6 Startup process." This will refer to post Vista systems and include both manager and loader at the same time.-- (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
And..? This talk of you guys is from Oct 2015. When will this ugly article name be gone, please? It is almost Oct 2017 now. Agreed this current name is not really good, it is in fact awful.Naki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Any words of comment? No one here uses Windows 7/8.1/10!? Naki (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)