Talk:Mount (computing)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merging Mounting (computing) and Mount Point[edit]

Yes, should merge Mounting and Mount Point.Ros Power 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merging it... --nathanbeach 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NTFS 5[edit]

A long discussion over at NTFS about the numbering scheme. You should probably reference NTFS 3 rather than NT 5 FS.

Power consumption[edit]

Does an unmounted drive typically still draw power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.102.71 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would think so, unless power saving is implemented on a hardware or system level —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar Guðvarðarson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Systems[edit]

Ought other systems that use this be included? Certainly DOSBox has a "mount" command and Macs should have an equivalent. -- 134.225.210.20 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macs uses this utility. See: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/mount-unmount.html DOSbox uses a different utility but uses the the same name. See here: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/MOUNT. (The '.com' is similar to '.exe' in that both are a 'file extension' in DOS parlance. Since a file extension defines how to do something and the command itself defines what that something does, the .com portion of the DOSbox mount.com command is not what makes the utilities different. What mount.com actually does differs from 'mount'. The latter being the same thing under operating systems that use these kernels: Unix, Linux and BSD. --Kernel.package (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a reference section[edit]

I apologize for not making the time this moment, to learn how to create a citation. The page on Microsoft's website explaining 'mount' under Windows (and that it is not what "mapping" a drive is), is here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307889

--Kernel.package (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

damn[edit]

Worst article evar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.5.93 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can edit it to make it better instead of just complaining. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with first statement from a layperson[edit]

Surely ANY time a storage device is read by the computer, it's being mounted - in a sense? I mean, whenever you insert a CD/DVD or flash drive, you can see what's on the device via the OS's file browser. If this is so, perhaps say so; if not, please specify what is distinct about "mounting". If it is the latter, is there some nutshell statement to uniquely identify what mounting is and how it is different from the relationship of the ?host OS/file system and the media/device temporarily attached to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.200.25 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]