Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swedes Show Intel Sandy Bridge Running BIOS-Successor UEFI

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the oofi-is-swedish-anyhow-isn't-it? dept.

Intel 216

An anonymous reader writes "SweClockers.com has gotten it hands on a Intel Sandy Bridge motherboard running Unified Extensible Firmware Interface, the long awaited successor of age-old BIOS. Among the differences is a significantly more user-friendly interface, the ability to boot from drives larger than 2 TB and faster boot times. Check it out, on video, in Swedish." Here's an Google's translation of the article.

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Test (0, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130514)

dletter [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 01:55:42 PM
The Facebook political team's initial snapshot of 98 House races shows that 74% of candidates with the most Facebook fans won their contests. In the Senate, our initial snapshot of 19 races shows that 81% of candidates with the most Facebook fans won their contests.

That is still a somewhat large chunk (1 in 5) where it wasn't right. So, I guess it is a good "guess" as to who will win, but, I wouldn't say it is a slam dunk.

More interesting would be an analysis of how closely the percentages of facebook fans vs. eachother was to the actual vote.

CheekyMunky [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 02:07:01 PM
dletter: That is still a somewhat large chunk (1 in 5) where it wasn't right. So, I guess it is a good "guess" as to who will win, but, I wouldn't say it is a slam dunk.

More interesting would be an analysis of how closely the percentages of facebook fans vs. eachother was to the actual vote.

This, pretty much. There were a lot of landslide victories on Tuesday, so if you just look at win/loss it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of them lined up.

If you go a little deeper and look at the correlation with winning margins, or the win/loss predictive accuracy of only the close races... I doubt it would be all that impressive.

King Something [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 02:29:43 PM
Meh.

downstairs [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 04:14:48 PM
dletter: The Facebook political team's initial snapshot of 98 House races shows that 74% of candidates with the most Facebook fans won their contests. In the Senate, our initial snapshot of 19 races shows that 81% of candidates with the most Facebook fans won their contests.

That is still a somewhat large chunk (1 in 5) where it wasn't right. So, I guess it is a good "guess" as to who will win, but, I wouldn't say it is a slam dunk.

More interesting would be an analysis of how closely the percentages of facebook fans vs. eachother was to the actual vote.

I think anyone with above average political knowledge could have guessed at a 74% and 81% clip respectively. Many races were a slam dunk themselves. Only a handful of races were real close, and only a handful were "big national news".

Plus, after guessing right on the slam dunks... flipping a coin gets you near 50% on the close ones.

So Facebook was 20-30 percent above flipping a coin? No big deal.

ultraholland [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 04:50:28 PM
so when the fark does it find Sarah Connor?

Grandmas Candy Dish Quote 2010-11-04 04:50:42 PM
That's impossible. I clearly remember untagging myself from those gangbang photos.

Barakku [TotalFark] Quote 2010-11-04 04:52:14 PM
downstairs: Plus, after guessing right on the slam dunks... flipping a coin gets you near 50% on the close ones.

So Facebook was 20-30 percent above flipping a coin? No big deal.

A simple analysis of easily collected public data was very significantly more accurate than chance. That is big. It wasn't using election polls and media circus hype, it had no way to tell 'Oh, dude X is probably going to lose' beyond likes.

A Famous Mortimer Production Quote 2010-11-04 04:54:03 PM
I don't have a facebook. I live off the grid and take dumps in libraries.

Ulyvanhammer Quote 2010-11-04 04:54:04 PM
I dont think this means anything. It seems to me that to most people, myself included, elections are a "more of the same" hassle. I vote. I dont vote for people I vote against them. Im pretty sure people like myself make up a pretty large demographic that don't get "like-happy" with the lesser of 2 evils.

INeedAName Quote 2010-11-04 04:55:15 PM
Grandmas Candy Dish: That's impossible. I clearly remember untagging myself from those gangbang photos.

After that statement, I have to assume your username is a Euphemism, and that makes me want to vomit.

highrye Quote 2010-11-04 04:55:19 PM
A Famous Mortimer Production: I don't have a facebook. I live off the grid and take dumps in libraries.

Mom?

URAPNIS

UEFI has been around for years. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130526)

I have a three year old "Intel Desktop Board" that can boot via UEFI, boot to 2TB+ drives, etc.

It's not exactly new. (And I have a server from 2001

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Informative)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130546)

Not new, but not very common. I suppose that it's mainly the large harddrives that push for this to get out to the mainboards..

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Informative)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130588)

EFI has been in Macs ever since they went Intel. Pretty common.

Of course, you don't get to play with it, but then why would you need to?

Diagnostics, system configuration, etc (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130810)

There are plenty of reasons to want BIOS/UEFI access. The problem with having a totally inaccessible one like Apple does is that if anything goes wrong or you need to change something, well then you are fucked. Apple "just works" until it doesn't and then it can often be more of a problem to fix. I am reminded of a Douglas Adams quote: "The difference between something that can go wrong and something that can't possibly go wrong is that when something that can't possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."

So simple tasks that the BIOS/UEFI/other firmware provides are things like checking the RAM configuration and hardware monitors. In the event there's a problem with the system you can see things at a lower level, like which RAM slots are acknowledging what RAM or if there is a temperature or voltage problem. It can also be used for configuration tasks. Some mundane, like turning off integrated components (sound, net) if they aren't needed, some complex like overclocking.

There's good reasons for access to it. Most people probably never need it, but it is good to have it there for those that do. All the functions are there, might as well have an interface so people can control them if required.

Re:Diagnostics, system configuration, etc (4, Informative)

techmuse (160085) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130850)

OS X will tell you all of this stuff in the system profiler. In fact, if you install RAM in a non-optimal configuration in a Mac Pro, it will automatically detect it and tell you how to correct the problem for best performance. In the laptops, there is no "wrong" configuration, unless you put the wrong type of RAM in, in which case that RAM slot is disabled or, in the worst case, the system won't boot (in which case UEFI wouldn't help you anyway).

What happens if the OS does run? (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130972)

If you've never encountered a system with OS troubles all that means if you've not diagnosed many systems. We have a host of tools, including info in the BIOS, to diagnose systems that don't boot when checking things like hardware errors. Like in the case of a disk that won't boot. Is the data messed up, or is it a disk failure? If so how bad? Well one thing the BIOS can tell you is if it can see the disk. If it shows no data, or corrupted data, you know it is really bad. On the other hand if it shows up fine, then it is time to move on to bootable diagnostics.

As I said I'm sure for normal users, access is not necessary. That doesn't mean it is never useful. To me it is like saying "Weld the breaker box shut, why would you need to get at that?" Well true, most people don't, I think a great many people never open a breaker box. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have it accessible should it be needed.

Re:What happens if the OS does run? (0, Troll)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131226)

You show significant ignorance in how Macs work. I suggest refraining from mistaking your presumably vast PC knowledge as though it's similarly applicable to the Mac.

On the Mac, you never, ever find yourself in a situation where access to equivalent of the BIOS would be helpful to troubleshoot Mac OS X boot problems. Ever. Situations where Mac OS X won't boot are very, very rare, and in those cases, all you have to do is boot from an OS X CD to begin troubleshooting.

On the PC, the BIOS settings program is fundamentally used to set motherboard options. Boot drive options, SATA/IDE modes, RAM settings, PnP, sleep, etc. On the Mac, these options are meaningless because Apple creates the hardware, so there's no reason to disable AHCI mode for SATA drives, you control sleep modes from OS X, and so on.

If you can come up with a scenario where BIOS-like access to EFI would be useful on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, I'm open to hearing them.

And, worse case, you can just use rEFIt, which is exactly what some people use to run Linux on their Macs.

Re:What happens if the OS does run? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131920)

Once you strip out the pretentious apple worship, what's left is the same old 'it can't break...' until it does fallacy.

1. you don't use the bios config screen to troubleshoot. you use it to SET boot options. EFI includes the ability to add troubleshooting utilities. Sometimes the hardware DOES fail, apple logo or not. It would be nice to simply press a key at bootup and gain access to a menu of hw testing utilities.

2. apple does not 'create' the hardware. No more than HP or dell or any other oem creates hardware. They design a motherboard (maybe) and a shell to put it in. Everything else is off the shelf components. A user accessible EFI would be a boon to techies who end up having to deal with their nontechnical friends/familys' apple products.

Re:What happens if the OS does run? (4, Insightful)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132758)

Amen to this.

Just to get my two cents in, it's also useful when all you have is damaged hardware to start with, Having access to that bios means I can lower certain speeds or increase wait states until things work again. CPU got a little too hot and BSOD's windows? Slow it down until it's stable. Ram going bad? Increase CAS and or RAS Serial Ports bad (Yea who uses them anymore right? ) Disable them, add a card and get the equipment hooked back up.

Mac? I had to support a Mac only environment for the past two years, on to a better job now thank you. When a Mac dies, there's no options. Power supply? $200+. Power supply for a PC ? $50. Mac lovers can worship their shiny white ... equipment... The reality of the professional working world is the Mac is eye candy, and only useful for performing work the same way a cooper mini is useful for hauling lumber. It's compact and cute, but don't expect to move much in it.

- Dan.

Re:What happens if the OS does run? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132156)

This post took a nosedive with the first sentence, but then made up for it with content not usually seen in a /. post.
 
-1, Snarky
 
+5, oh snap

Re:What happens if the OS does run? (4, Informative)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131902)

You can get some information by booting verbose, by holding down the V key, which causes the computer to boot with a text console. That may give you some information about what's going on.

If the boot process is failing partway, you might be able to boot into single-user mode by holding down the S key, which gives you a root console. From there you can use unix tools to look around and/or fix things.

There are other keys you can use, like the option key to choose between boot devices, or 'n' to boot from a netboot server. Insert the computer's installation DVD, and hold down the 'd' key during boot, and the computer will boot from a diagnostic partition on the disk, which I assume would be useful.

You can also set an EFI password, and lock down these things.

Re:Diagnostics, system configuration, etc (2, Informative)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131916)

I believe Mac Pros also have LEDs near the RAM slots that will indicate problems.

Re:Diagnostics, system configuration, etc (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131094)

You can access system profiler from the OS install disc too along with some other utilities, AFAIK.
Also, EFI is not totally inaccessible on a Mac. It just doesn't have a menu driven interface by default. Several key combinations modify the startup sequence, boot order/options, whatever, just like most BIOS would do.

You didn't really make the case for needing to configuring hardware from firmware vs. configuring hardware from software the hardware was designed to run.

Something tells me you are equally miffed about the EFI in your car and this conversation will go nowhere...

Re:Diagnostics, system configuration, etc (2, Informative)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132104)

There are plenty of reasons to want BIOS/UEFI access. The problem with having a totally inaccessible one like Apple does is that if anything goes wrong or you need to change something, well then you are fucked.

Actually, you take it to the nearest Apple store, and they usually fix for the cost of parts. I've never seen the need to tinker with a PC myself. And yet my jobs usually have me in the guts of a Sun Enterprise or an IBM P series server.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130816)

Of course, you don't get to play with it, but then why would you need to?

The only boards that are worth having are the ones that validate my opinion of myself as an ubergeek. My entire self worth springs from my ability to adjust pointless hardware parameters through a poorly designed interface cobbled together by Korean sweatshop developers.

I will never buy a motherboard that doesn't allow me to set the Clock Phase Skew to 0.25, or and the Memory Overdrive Voltage to 1.79. Those are the correct values. If your Apple motherboard doesn't have a byzantine boot menu that allows you to set them, then you're being kept in a walled garden. If you allow Steve Jobs to be an authoritarian control freak who prevents you from setting your memory timing to 4-3-3-2, then why don't you just an iPad and a Wii, and the rest of us will use the real computers.

Now if you excuse me, I need to change the fuel injectors in my car. It's getting near winter, and as the air density increases I need to change the fuel air mixture. It's important that you stay on top of this. Only sheep leave it the same year round.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131118)

I think you mean 're-jet the carbuerators' because anyone with a small bit of understanding knows that you don't need to fiddle with fuel injectors, pump etc. You just remap the ECU (or better yet have it adjust itself based on intake air temperature, something pretty much every car since at least OBD-II has had the capability of doing.) Honestly the only think you might need to do is go install your electrical heating system if you live in an area/country that gets cold enough to really freeze the engine bay.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131454)

No. No. The GP is quite right. The same person that wants to tweak their BIOS because they think it's best is the same kinda person that would think changing the fuel injectors would be the Right Thing To Do.

Your Sarcasm meter is off. I suggest you swap it out for a wide-band one. Perhaps in metric.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131768)

Not really.

While I wouldn't change the fuel injectors based on a seasonal change, I have changed them based around performance limitation of stock setups.

I have also changed out the breathing system to take advantage of less restrictive airflow. I have added performance spark plugs and ignition systems in some cases too.

The point is that it's not uncommon to modify the mechanics of a car to obtain some objective. Increased fuel injector size allows quicker/more responsive, and in some cases, more delivery of fuel. Of course you probably wouldn't see much of an improvement if you didn't alter other things too.

Perhaps the person who changes bios settings to tweak them out is the same type of person who would soup up a car to get the most performance possible from them.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132078)

Some of us just like to tinker on our machines more than actually use them. That little bit of uncertainty of whether it will turn on, or blow up is such a rush..

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (0, Troll)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132298)

Perhaps the person who changes bios settings to tweak them out is the same type of person who would soup up a car to get the most performance possible from them.

Or, get the performance that you should get in the first place if the person who picked the default settings for the BIOS was competent.

I would expect that Macs would be even worse about picking the safest defaults, based on the mantra of "it just works".

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

TinyManCan (580322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132508)

Actually, it is uncommon for someone to modify their automobile. Only 3.5% of people will use non-OEM parts if they are given an equal-cost choice, so the number who would go for an out-of-spec non-OEM replacement/upgrade is even smaller. Basically, you are trying to say that something that occurs with less frequency than coming across someone running Linux on their Desktop is actually common. Bzzzzt.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132640)

Lol.. Where did you get your numbers from? I mean there are entire industries devoted to little more then performance tuning and souping up cars. Ever heard of Nascar or any of the other related racing sports? I mean hell, there are even blowers, turbos, and quite a few other line of products just for boats let along motorcycles, quads and so on.

Do you really think Jegs or Summit, elderbrock, Heddman, Holly, bully dog, Protune, or the multitude of TV shows like Horsepower, Trucks, offroad, and so on would exist without people tweaking shit on a regular basis? Just to capture less then 3.5% of the auto repair market? I mean seriously, there is a lot of money being pumped into making cars stronger, faster, more responsive, and so on. They've even got performance kits available for 2010 vehicles off the show room floor.

And where is this 3.5% number published at? I'm betting that the question was something like when replacing a broken part on your car, would you go after market if the OEM version was the same price. You see, a question like that already implies a stock equivalent replacement part- that is that the replacement is just to go back to stock. It wouldn't even start to consider a performance increase or anyone who is already souping a car up. If you are replacing the stock parts already with performance parts, you wouldn't even consider a stock part in your quest to replace a bad part.

So sure, there are a lot of cars that won't see anything above stock unless it's the fuel put in it. But there are a hell of a lot more cars getting performance upgrades they you are trying to let on.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131198)

You may be joking but you'd be surprised how many times I have had to tweak BIOS because the defaults are frankly lame. I've seen them with Speedstep/Cool&Quiet disabled, RAM timings on the absolute lowest the RAM is rated for, all the legacy ports nobody uses turned on, etc. Personally I don't think I'd want a machine where I had no ability to ensure the defaults were sane, because in nearly every BIOS I've seen (haven't dealt with EFI yet) the defaults are ultra conservative. I didn't pay all this money to have a quad and 8Gb of RAM just to have the performance hobbled by bad BIOS settings. I have yet to see a BIOS that gives you decent defaults for most hardware.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131708)

Now if you excuse me, I need to change the fuel injectors in my car. It's getting near winter, and as the air density increases I need to change the fuel air mixture. It's important that you stay on top of this. Only sheep leave it the same year round.

Right-on brother !

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130876)

We use EFI to boot a Linux image loaded into EFI flash. So it takes less than a second to start the kernel (around 500 milliseconds - we haven't timed it precisely).

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131036)

um no. Last I checked, Macs weren't really that common in the market. So no,it's not common.

Macs run OSX, so I suppose thats common amongst all computers as well?

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130640)

UEFI is extremely common. Modern laptop makers use it as a way to have a modern BIOS (e.g. InsydeH2O) instead of the horrible cesspool of 16-bit code that are traditional BIOSes. At least Acer and Sony seem to be using this kind of setup for all of their recent laptops for a few years now, and I'm pretty sure quite a few other manufacturers are doing the same.

Unfortunately, most of the time the EFI features are completely inaccessible to the user and OS. They just add in the usual BIOS emulation layer, the boot process is designed to resemble a ye olde BIOS, the Setup menu is modeled after a ye olde BIOS, EFI services are unavailable, there's no EFI console or boot from EFI media. Sadly, the goal seems to make it easier for them to make the BIOS, not to make it more useful to end users.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130848)

Sadly, the goal seems to make it easier for them to make the BIOS, not to make it more useful to end users.

The goal should actually be to make interaction with the BIOS completely unnecessary for 99.9% of end users.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Interesting)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132070)

At least Acer and Sony seem to be using this kind of setup for all of their recent laptops for a few years now, and I'm pretty sure quite a few other manufacturers are doing the same.

That's all I needed to hear...
Sony:
The same people who have no qualms about adding a rootkit to your windows-based PC if you have the audacity to put an audio CD in your drive.
The same people that make the VAIO, which is one of the most ridiculous machines to have to work on if any of the hardware fails (and it does, repeatedly and often).
The same people who sold a product, then removed half the features in the name of anti-piracy... causing the pirates to start hacking the DRM on their games, instead of playing with OtherOS.

and

Acer:
The guys who make laptops with an average life expectancy of about 30 days past the warranty period.
The guys who make laptops that you can't work on without a complete tear-down in order to access anything more than the RAM.

Both of these shining beacons of industry say this is good tech? That's a fantastic recommendation (in my eyes, at least), for why we should avoid it like the plague. Who knows what kind of nasty bugs it will add to your system? What's to stop them from logging everything your system does, and/or phoning home constantly?

Seriously, you people should read more Shadowrun and Cyberpunk rulebooks, there's "history" in there that seems to be coming true in the real world.

--
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Historical Preenactment Society (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132170)

Or maybe not. It's not all jetpacks and laser beams for breakfast right now, for that matter.

Cheers,

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (2, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130652)

What's going on with OpenBIOS? It showed a lot of promise ...

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (3, Insightful)

joib (70841) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130704)

NIH?

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130882)

OpenBIOS is an implementation of OpenFirmware, which is an independent IEEE standard implemented by multiple vendors. It was, therefore, completely inappropriate for an Intel platform.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131788)

mmmmmmm fourth!!!

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (3, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132060)

Every Intel brand motherboard since 2007 has had EFI. From what I can tell, this motherboard is an Intel brand, too.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130658)

I have a three year old "Intel Desktop Board" that can boot via UEFI, boot to 2TB+ drives, etc.

It's not exactly new. (And I have a server from 2001

It was common on Intel's high-end server boards, then it came to their entry level boards a few years ago. Now it is making it into the mainstream desktop boards. However, what Intel had on their server boards was quite slow to boot.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131016)

The site video requires Flash, so I skipped the video.

The pretty EFI screen makes it look like they're actually expecting the buyers of the board to be using EFI. With the exception of Intel Apple machines, few users actually used the EFI capability on boards that had it.

Although the EFI screen looks nice, those thermometer-like displays for voltage don't really make much sense. It's not like showing a small indication for CPU voltage tells the user anything useful.
If they'd wanted to do that, showing the current drain (or calculating power consumption) of various parts of the system would have been much more interesting.

For some reason they airbrushed out the CPU details from the screen shown. Perhaps that means they were running an unreleased chip under an NDA?

These motherboard articles would be more fun if they said something about compatibility with various OSes, certainly Linux. Some would no doubt be curious if any got OS X running too.

I guess this board doesn't have Linux available to boot from in ROM? These days many might find that a great "safe browsing" malware resistant mode. How about giving motherboards physical switches or jumpers so firmware can be hard wired to read-only for safety?

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131958)

The demonstration is done on a Sandy Bridge system, explicitly stated in the article. It is indeed unreleased and NDA covered.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131326)

I've seen a lot of articles about how new and cool UEFI is going to be recently, they must be pushing some publicity to the media who are presumably publishing it on the grounds it sounds clever.

Re:UEFI has been around for years. (1)

phil4 (666912) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132400)

It's not exactly new. (And I have a server from 2001

Cool, will it do that "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. " line for you whenever you want?

Cause I'd be yelling about pod bay doors all day long if it will.

Nice! (0, Offtopic)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130536)

Now I can stick one of those new Seagate 3TB drives in my system, instead of relying on ho-hum USB 3.0.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130564)

You don't need UEFI for just that. Even 32-bit Server 2003 SP1 and later support GPT and >2TB on data drives.

Re:Nice! (1)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131370)

Not as a boot drive.

Then again not likely anyone "needs" a >2TB boot drive. Still most computers sold only have a single drive and eventually dell, hp, and the like will want to sell 2.1TB drives. Booting from >2TB drive requires UEFI.

Re:Nice! (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131530)

Not as a boot drive.

Then again not likely anyone "needs" a >2TB boot drive. Still most computers sold only have a single drive and eventually dell, hp, and the like will want to sell 2.1TB drives. Booting from >2TB drive requires UEFI.

Don't worry.
A drive advertised as "2.1 TB" is actually only 1.91 TB once you correct for the lies.

Re:Nice! (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131882)

Youre OS reports the size incorrectly — you still have 2.1 TB, your OS is lying and should say 1.91 TiB, not 1.91 TB.

There are no lies from the drive manufacturers.

I think all but Windows now have the calculations correctly shown. Apple have moved to 1000b to 1kB etc, and many Linux distributions measure as kiB.

Re:Nice! (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132362)

Huh? A terabyte is 1099511627776 bytes, while the harddrives use 1000 bytes instead of 1024 bytes, resulting 1000000000000 bytes, which is false advertising. At least as I understand it.

Re:Nice! (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132090)

Not as a boot drive.

Then again not likely anyone "needs" a >2TB boot drive. Still most computers sold only have a single drive and eventually dell, hp, and the like will want to sell 2.1TB drives. Booting from >2TB drive requires UEFI.

Actually, your boot drive should be as small as you can get it, for performance reasons.

Best (home-brew) scenario is several small drives in multiple RAID1 configuration... boot from a pair, use programs from another pair, and use anything else for storage. Gigabit Ethernet makes anything on your network as quick as if it came from a drive in the local machine unless you're running an array of Raptors for storage.

Re:Nice! (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132414)

Unless you count latency, which is probably going to be a fair bit higher than just a SATA cable. I think SSDs can also pump out more data than a gigabit port can handle.

Drivers larger than 2TB! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130550)

That's pretty big for a driver. It would take me months to write something that big.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130750)

That's ironic. I heard that's about the size of the new kernel for Windows 8!

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131858)

I heard that's about the size of the new kernel for Windows 8!

Yes,almost the entire 2GB of the windows kernel is a graphics driver. It's been included in windows kernels for quite a while now. Of course, most people replace that quickly, with something from nVidia or ATI.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (5, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132660)

Yes,almost the entire 2GB of the windows kernel is a graphics driver.

That's correct -- Microsoft optimizes their video driver by pre-rendering every possible graphic in advance, and including all of them as resources in the driver binary. That way they can display anything via a single lookup into the displays-table.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130860)

I find it takes me longer to write smaller software.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130888)

Clearly you have never used an HP printer.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131230)

So that's why I heard they are about to include a new Western Digital WDBAC0030HBK with their printers. I think HP designed the extra space in their packaging thinking this scenario from the very beginning.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132410)

We don't call them printers, they are Ink sale Enablement Devices, or IEDs.

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132654)

No, they're shit is what they are. And fuck HP for requiring a 200+MB base driver install package. Bastards!

Re:Drivers larger than 2TB! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132192)

not if you coded it in a 'managed framework web 2.0 extreme programming' language.

Finns Flash AMD salty chips walking something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130558)

My brain came to a complete halt trying to parse the headline "Swedes Show Intel Sandy Bridge Running BIOS-Successor UEFI"

I saw Swedes running across a sandy bridge that their spies ("Intel") had just discovered and "UEFI" being some sort of Ultimate Fighting thingamaroo

I was in a coma for a good two minutes there.

-------
TDz.

Re:Finns Flash AMD salty chips walking something (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131676)

I saw Swedes running across a sandy bridge that their spies ("Intel") had just discovered and "UEFI" being some sort of Ultimate Fighting thingamaroo

Fear not. The agreement with Wikileaks halts any disclosure about Sweden.

Drivers? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130578)

> boot from drivers larger than 2 TB

Just what we need, more and bigger drivers!

Drivers? What about the 9-irons? (3, Funny)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131218)

And just how far can someone hit a ball with a 2TB driver? Are they PGA-approved, or will the club kick me out if they find me using one? Hmm...

Cheers,

drivers larger than 2 TB (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130664)

When will the code bloat stop? What are they doing, including a look-up table for every memory address?

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (0, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130756)

Um, you do realize that as computers get more and more powerful and having more and more memory that video and music files are going to get big, right? Right now that 2TB disk handles only like 40 Blu Rays, right? I mean that's not really that unreasonable to expect hard disks of the future to be able to handle.

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130780)

I think you need to re-read the title of his post. I'll even highlight the relevant part for you:

drivers larger than 2 TB

Make sure to read that emphasized words a few times for the joke to finally sink in.

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130794)

woosh

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130798)

> Um, you do realize that as computers get more and more powerful and having more and more memory that video and music files are going to get big, right?

And how much disk space do you suppose it takes to store a high fidelity digitally sampled 7 channel sound that goes, "Whoooooooooosh!"?

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130900)

Is 7 channels enough? It needs to be 3D spacial audio so that he can hear it going over his head...

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130914)

Including the drivers for the sound system? A couple terabytes.

Re:drivers larger than 2 TB (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132140)

Shoot, our art department resource server has 3TB and we're constantly bumping up against that limit. Our art department is one guy and I help sometimes. And we're a tiny catalog shop that puts out two catalogs a year. We just never delete anything. I can imagine a serious publishing company chews through that in a day and orders 2TB drives by the case.

2TB drivers (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130670)

..the ability to boot from drivers larger than 2 TB and faster boot times.

That's some work to be able to load a +2TB driver and still have faster boot times. No how much RAM did I need for this?

Kerma vhureeng (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130680)

Uneeffied Ixtenseeble-a Furmvere-a Interffece-a nemed heur tu tudey's beseec inpoot ooootpoot system thet elloos intrunce-a in iernest veet zee loonch ooff Intel Sundy Breedge-a et zee ind. Bork bork bork! UEFI kun leeknes feed itt nedbuntet oopereteefsystem sum öferkummer många ef de-a begränsneenger sum feenns i det uråldreega BIOS. UEFI is leeke-a a sceled-doon oopereteeng system vheech oofercumes muny ooff zee leemiteshuns ooff zee ege-a-oold BIOS.

Noo in UEFI

* Ebeelity tu mudern grepheecel interffece-a
* Uppstert från legreengsenheter större-a än 2 TB Buut frum sturege-a defeeces lerger thun 2 TB
* Snebbere-a uppstertsteeder Fester buut teemes
* Flexeebel uppstert från oobegränsed mängd källur Flexeeble-a buut frum un unleemited fereeety ooff suoorces
* CPOo-ooberuende-a erkeetektoor CPOo ercheetectoore-a independent
* Foollt utbyggd prugremmeeljö Foolly fledged sufftvere-a infurunment
* Stöd för dreefrootiner Sooppurt fur dreefers
* Stöd för 32/64-beeters meennesedressering Sooppurt fur 32/64 beet memury eddresseeng
* Efuncered säkerhet inklooseefe-a kryptereeng Edfunced secooreety incloodeeng incrypshun

Re:Kerma vhureeng (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130856)

Bork! Bork! Bork!

Re:Kerma vhureeng (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130870)

... but how easy is it to recover when it gets bork, bork, borked?

Re:Kerma vhureeng (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131932)

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that once, I believe in season 2 of The Muppet Show, it was revealed that the Swedish Chef was only faking speaking Mock Swedish., and that his primary language was actually Mock Japanese.

And know you know, the rest of the story.

Re:Kerma vhureeng (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132310)

from the swedish wp (for comparison): Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) är en ersättare till det nu något åldrade BIOS som finns i de flesta datorer. EFI gör det möjligt att lägga till och utveckla en rad funktioner som inte är möjligt med ett vanligt BIOS. Tekniken är framtagen av Intel och används bl.a. av Apple sedan januari 2006. EFI har varit möjlig att använda tillsammans med Linux sedan år 2000. EFI har kritiserats för att inte vara en öppen standard då koden är upphovskyddad och ej allmänt tillgänglig. MSI lanserar under hösten år 2008 tre moderkort med UEFI[1].

I can see the ad for this product from Intel: Max von Sydow reads this, against a gray sky, rocky coast, with a death figure trying to get his old ibm pc working again on a table that looks like a chessboard. Ok, you can have the swedish chef off to the side.

Re:Kerma vhureeng (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132590)

Meep Meep Meep Meeeeeeeeppppp!!!

Microsoft (2, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130736)

I heard Microsoft is already working on a competitor to UEFI. It's called UFIA. ;-)

Re:Microsoft (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130778)

Really? I would've thought it would be FUIA.

Re:Microsoft (2, Insightful)

PaulMeigh (1277544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130874)

And it really does load 2TB drivers.

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131310)

Does that run on an Intel Sandyvag processor?

Eufi is not a BIOS, (4, Informative)

Snufu (1049644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130824)

It's just a Swedish cooking term.

"Eufi deufi, peurfi dur." means "Add meatballs and simmer for 20 minutes."

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo [youtube.com]

Re:Eufi is not a BIOS, (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130904)

Actually, "Add meatballs and simmer for 20 minutes" would translate to something like "Lägg i köttbullar och låt sjuda i 20 minuter.".

Re:Eufi is not a BIOS, (0, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131040)

*facepalm* Is the concept of a joke something new to you?

Re:Eufi is not a BIOS, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131126)

*facepalm* Is the concept of a joke something new to you?

Well, he does speak Swedish.

Re:Eufi is not a BIOS, (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131042)

In Sweden that say 20 and not something like 'twenty'? odd

death to MBR, death to C/H/S (5, Informative)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131110)

More than a decade after hard drives stopped internally using a fixed cylinder/head/sector geometry, we finally get mass market deployment of a partitioning scheme that completely gets rid of this big, dumb lie.

All the hoo-haa over new drives with 4kB sectors and the way that DOS-compatible operating systems partitioning tools want you to lay out your disk has actually already been experienced by sysadmins for years, when they attempt to come up with partitioning schemes for those operating systems that align filesystem blocks with the underlying geometry of SSD write blocks or RAID 5 stripe segments.

Next time you buy an SD card or thumb drive, stick it into a box with a decent formatting tool and look at the actual start sector for the partitions. You will find that the manufacturers have quietly been using sane partition start sector values (i.e., power of two, not "first sector of second track of cylinder 0") because they know that the performance of the device would be horrible if almost every VFAT cluster write spanned multiple flash write blocks.

And all this stuffing around has been forced upon us because Microsoft never had the balls to say, "you want to rock out with Borland Sidekick or Netware 3.0? Sure, use a frickin' VM, or use a new version of DOS that speaks native LBA to the BIOS. Those are your choices."

All the brainpower and effort that has been wasted on workarounds for the effects of the brain damaged MBR partitioning table could have been much better used actually improving how computers worked, rather than treading water.

Re:death to MBR, death to C/H/S (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131494)

All the brainpower and effort that has been wasted on workarounds for the effects of the brain damaged MBR partitioning table could have been much better used actually improving how computers worked, rather than treading water.

well what are you waiting for?

Re:death to MBR, death to C/H/S (1)

Kakari (1818872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131860)

What do you consider a decent formatting tool?

BIOS successor? I think not. (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131162)

I saw nothing new in the video clip; just the same old configuration options as before, except with a new, flashy interface. I don't see why that's necessary, but I suppose we should be grateful that they aren't foisting any animated paperclips on us.

Re:BIOS successor? I think not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131782)

Give it a chance to actually get going. I was hoping to have UEFI with my last computer upgrade but alas it was not to be.

What are some of the benefits that we could see with it? Well:
-Bare metal hypervisors. Imagine being able to boot up linux and windows side-by-side and not have to worry about setting up any sort of virtual machine. You could switch between the two using a keyboard combo. Or even being able to setup a COW copy of windows so cleaning up your mom's copy of windows is as easy as hitting a few keys and setting it back to a known clean state...

-Improved device support. Devices could use a standardised interface on the "bios" level so that windows/linux/osx would just need a simple driver layer to talk to the device. Device manufacturers could provide what basically amounts to a shim to load into the UEFI which provides the mapping between the actual device and the standardised hardware interface. Of course this may run into issues such as non-standard or extended features but this could be taken care of with extensible interfaces.

There are many more benefits that could be accomplished but I shall leave it up to you to ponder...

Re:BIOS successor? I think not. (1)

znerk (1162519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132382)

What are some of the benefits that we could see with it? Well:
-Bare metal hypervisors. Imagine being able to boot up linux and windows side-by-side and not have to worry about setting up any sort of virtual machine. You could switch between the two using a keyboard combo. Or even being able to setup a COW copy of windows so cleaning up your mom's copy of windows is as easy as hitting a few keys and setting it back to a known clean state...

Oh, like ESXi [vmware.com] ? No, wait, you said no virtual machine... wait, what? Hypervisor = Virtual machine control system [yourdictionary.com] .

Your "insta-clean" windows can be accomplished with drive imaging [techsupportalert.com] , or "freezing" [wikipedia.org] .

-Improved device support. Devices could use a standardised interface on the "bios" level so that windows/linux/osx would just need a simple driver layer to talk to the device. Device manufacturers could provide what basically amounts to a shim to load into the UEFI which provides the mapping between the actual device and the standardised hardware interface. Of course this may run into issues such as non-standard or extended features but this could be taken care of with extensible interfaces.

Are you advocating an OS-independent version of DirectX [viaarena.com] for bare metal? Or are you describing how BIOS already operates [rlrouse.com] ?

In short, either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're simply unaware that what you're describing is already in existence (and, indeed, is the way it already works).

Re:BIOS successor? I think not. (4, Insightful)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132036)

Its less about appearance and more about adaptability. UEFI software is not as strict about which motherboard it runs on - and you can implement significantly more functionality into it, helped by the fact that its much easier to code for (C++ rather than Assembly). The fact that its capable of handling more than 64kilobytes of RAM helps for this as well. Its not based on code thats older than quite a number of posters here. Dozens and dozens of difficult (thus costly) modifications have had to be made to BIOS in order for it not to break modern systems. I remember when more than 128gb was unusable on a lot of machines because of BIOS; and frequently forced a complete motherboard replacement because BIOS just could not be reliably updated on a broad scale. The fact that its adaptability also permits greater ease of use is merely a bonus; its not its purpose. And it boots faster too. BIOS has been horribly mutilated and twisted into something it was never meant to do. It should've been replaced years ago.

Translated transcript (4, Informative)

Hazelfield (1557317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131490)

Hello and welcome to Sweclockers! Today we're looking at UEFI, the boot software that is the successor of the old but still very popular BIOS. UEFI has become a hot topic recently as it's going to be used extensively in the next generation of Intel processors, codenamed Sandy Bridge. So let us have a look at what it has to offer.

The biggest difference between UEFI and BIOS is that UEFI gives motherboard manufacturers much better possibilities of implementing their own software. Our test motherboard comes from Asus, and the Taiwanese manufacturer has put in several exciting new features. To begin with you can use your mouse, which wasn't possible in BIOS, and there's also the possibility of running in several different modes. For example, there's this simplified mode that greets you when you enter UEFI. Here you can choose between power saving, normal setting or some kind of optimal setting. All settings are then adjusted automatically and you don't have to worry about it. Then there's this simple drag-and-drop system to choose boot order and some panels are available that show fan speeds and the like. Very simple and absolutely enough for anyone without any desire to dig into it.

There's also a more advanced mode available through the menu here, and now it looks more familiar compared to BIOS. It works more or less the same way except the graphics are updated and there are more options. There are several menus available where you can change language, security settings, and there's this "AI Tweaker" where you can overclock the processor, just as you're used to from BIOS. The usual advanced settings for integrated components such as the processor etc. are there, and they work just as usual. The monitor settings where you can see temperature, fan speeds, set fan profiles and so on, also work just as in BIOS except it looks better and you can use your mouse which makes it easier to navigate. The boot settings contain some new features, for example you can just click one of the alternatives and the computer boots from that device, you don't have to enter a special menu or anything. Finally in the last menu, there are some tools, Asus' flash tool to update the BIOS, which itself is also updated with new features. You can easily use your mouse to pick a BIOS version from hard disks or USB storage that you want to use on your motherboard.

Well, that's just a quick look on an implementation of UEFI for the next generation Intel platform. With the possibilities offered by this new system we will likely see new interesting solutions in the near future. We at Sweclockers will of course cover this development and report as much as we can until the final release.

Re:Translated transcript (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131996)

UEFI gives motherboard manufacturers much better possibilities of implementing their own software.

That is not a plus.

"the long awaited successor"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131896)

More like intel throwing another NIH hissy fit with something deliberately incompatible with the rest of the world. In fact, it's a similarly craptastic itanic holdover. What's wrong with openboot, eh?

User-friendly (1)

AlfaMike (1902786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132202)

I might look like a hardcore old-school wannabe but IMHO all this bloat makes it more confusing than it helps. I prefer the simpler to-the-point BIOS the way it is now. It's not like I go into the BIOS everyday anyway.

One thing that's on my wishlist (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132280)

One thing that disappoints me about current UEFI motherboards is that you still need to have certain files at certain locations on your primary hard disk. Specifically my new EFI based system required me to partition my hard drive so that there is an EFI System partition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFI_System_partition [wikipedia.org]

This EFI System partition is a variant of the FAT file system that contains the EFI bootloader. When i heard of EFI i assumed there'd be a bit of flash on the motherboard to store the EFI bootloader and applications. I hoped the BIOS itself would be able to contain the driver for whatever filesystem i was currently using in its flash. I was hoping that EFI would make it so i could avoid having bootloaders on a specific drive thus making it possible to add or remove drives as wanted without having to worry about which drive contained the bootloader. Unfortunately this isn't the case. Your harddrive will still require certain sectors to contain certain files. There is still such a thing as a system partition. In fact it now requires you to pollute your hard drive with a special FAT based partition.

Essentially EFI has the same hack that traditional BIOS has in that a bootloader needs to be stored at sector 0 of the first drive (but in this case an EFI system partition in your partition table). When i heard about UEFI i hoped that there would be a way to load a filesystem driver directly into the flash of the BIOS so that i could layout whatever filesystem i had in whatever way i wanted. There isn't. Things on your hard drive must be set up in a specific way. Hopefully in the future motherboard manufacturers will include some flash on the motherboard setup as the EFI system partition but in the meantime you'll have to format one of your hard drive partitions as the system partition. Just like you do with traditional BIOS.

No one posted this yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132672)

From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add efi e820 memory mapping on x86 [try #1]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:32:17 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > This Patch add an efi e820 memory mapping.
> >
>
> Why?

EFI is this other Intel brain-damage (the first one being ACPI). It's
totally different from a normal BIOS, and was brought on by ia64, which
never had a BIOS, of course.

Sadly, Apple bought into the whole "BIOS bad, EFI good" hype, so we now
have x86 machines with EFI as the native boot protocol.

The original EFI code in the kernel basically duplicates all the BIOS
interfaces (ie everything that looks at a memory map comes in two
varieties: the normal and tested BIOS e820 variety, and the usually broken
and hacked-up EFI memory map variety).

Translating the EFI memory map to e820 is very much the sane thing to do,
and should have been done by ia64 in the first place. Sadly, EFI people
(a) think that their stinking mess is better than a BIOS and (b) are
historically ia64-only, so they didn't do that, but went the "we'll just
duplicate everything using our inferior EFI interfaces" way.

Edgars patch looks fine per se, I'd just wish we had more testers (or,
alternatively, people would just use bootcamp and make their Apple
machines look like PC's, but see (a) above).

                Linus

From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add efi e820 memory mapping on x86 [try #1]
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Sadly, Apple bought into the whole "BIOS bad, EFI good" hype, so we now
> have x86 machines with EFI as the native boot protocol.

Btw, that's not totally new. I think some people played around with EFI on
x86 even before Apple came around. And don't get me wrong - the problem
with EFI is that it actually superficially looks much better than the
BIOS, but in practice it ends up being one of those things where it has
few real advantages, and often just a lot of extra complexity because of
the "new and improved" interfaces that were largely defined by a
committee.

I think a lot of the "new standards" tend to be that way. Trying to solve
a lot of problems and allow everybody to add their own features, instead
of just saying that it's better to just standardize the hardware.

For example, instead of ACPI, we could just have had standardized hardware
(and a few tables to define things like numbers of CPU's etc). It would
have been simpler for everybody. But no, people seem to think that it's
somehow "better" to have wild and crazy hardware, and then have a really
complicated way of describing it - and driving it - dynamically.

So EFI has this cool shell, a loadable driver framework, and other nice
features. Where "nice" obviously means "much more complex than the simple
things they designed in the late seventies back when people were stupid
and just wanted things to work".

Of course, it's somewhat questionable whether people have actually gotten
smarter or stupider in the last 30 years. It's not enough time for
evolution to have increased our brain capacity, but it certainly _is_
enough time for most people to no longer understand how hardware works any
more.

Not a good combination, in other words.

Not that I'd ever claim that the BIOS is wonderful either, but at least
everybody knows that the BIOS is just a bootloader, and doesn't try to
make it anything else.

The absolutely biggest advantage of a BIOS is that it's _so_ inconvenient
and obviously oldfashioned, that you have to be crazy to want to do
anything serious in it. Real mode, 16-bit code is actually an _advantage_
in that sense. People know how to treat it, and don't get any ideas about
it being some grandiose framework for anything else than "just load the OS
and get the hell out of there".

                        Linus /

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?