(Continued from previous message)

RS> doing a precautionary save of the boot sector before executing an
RS> FDISK /MBR tho. Like I say, very few, even knowledgeable people,
RS> consider that worth it. You can do whatever you choose.

KR> so you DO agree then rod why didn't you say so long ago and save all
KR> the typing,

Because you were raving on about the danger of JUST the FDISK /MBR, what
caused you to jump into the thread in the first place, and wildly
exaggerate the risk of it. THATs what was being discussed, how dangerous
it really is and whether JUST that warrents a special save of JUST that.

And I said in my first response to you jumping in the thread that I
think its worth having a rescue disk. But that wasnt to protect against
the risk of an FDISK /MBR, but more realistic risks.

KR> since a nortons rescue disk contains boot sector backups, it all comes
KR> to the same thing doesn't it?

Nope, not when you hyperventilate about the risk of an FDISK /MBR when
in fact other stuff is a much higher risk to the data on a drive.

KR> not 0.005% of the population ever use it even now that M$ admit to
KR> it's existence, paul's case is the only one that i have ever come
KR> across where it has done something useful.

RS> It happens, usually in that situation, where some fundamental error
RS> like putting an IDE cable on backwards has been made. Or a virus has
RS> infected the executable code in it, or a virus checker or fancy boot
RS> ute has changed it.

KR> there are plenty of other things that can stuff the boot sector, from
KR> disk failure to virusses. even then boot sector corruption is not
KR> common, it is just that it is so easy to guard against and the
KR> consiquences are so disruptive.

RS> Well, thats all quite different to you jumping into this thread and
RS> suggesting a particular danger with FDISK /MBR.

KR> it is one of the things that can bite you,

Nope, the risk of an FDISK /MBR is utterly microscopic.

KR> so why not take 2 minutes to guard against it.

Because the risk is microscopic.

KR> what do you have against taking sensible, and easy precautions?

The risk doesnt warrant it.

KR> is it just that you didn't suggest it so it must be wrong?

Nope, in fact I did suggest it for other much higher risks. So this sort
of faking wont help.

RS> And the vast bulk of the other boot sector corruption can be fixed
RS> with an FDISK /MBR, you dont need to have a saved copy of the boot
RS> sector.

KR> you dont even need to do an fdisk/mbr if you have a good copy of the
KR> boot sector.

You dont need to use the saved sector if you can do an FDISK /MBR.

KR> that will also fix any problems with the partition table which fdisk
KR> /mbr certainly wont.

Sure, its worth having. Utterly separate argument to whether its worth
saving it just for the risk of an FDISK /MBR tho.

KR> at one time, there were cluedos in knowing of it's existance, but
KR> these days every competent pc user knows about it.

RS> Crap.

KR> come on rod, we all know that you are the repository of all
KR> worthwhile knowledge about pcs, but there are a lot of other people
KR> out there who know just as much as you, they probably read the same
KR> publications as you, and the fdisk /mbr thing has been quite widely
KR> published in all sorts of pc mags.

It may well have been. Fact remains, most normal users dont know about it.
Two completely separate questions in fact.

--- PQWK202