Talk:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
According to this presentation from WinHec 2004 (page 15), the EFI System Partition (ESP) is FAT-32: EFI And Windows "Longhorn"
And Microsoft just won the case about the FAT patents: Microsoft's file system patent upheld
So to use FAT you need to license the IP from Microsoft: Microsoft FAT license (Broken link?)
But you can do that for free if you are implementing EFI, here:
The standard doesn't say anything about other partitions than the ESP, so that doesn't rule out MacOS.
"Ideally, the EFI development model will move the concept of hardware drivers from the operating system back into the lowest level of the PC structure: the hardware itself."
Does anyone else have a problem with this sentence? I edited the article to include sections and made some minor grammatical changes. I wanted to change this sentence, but I let it stand.
The problem that I see is that it makes it sound like the author is proposing that OS-level drivers are bad and EFI-level drivers are good. That debate is probably beyond the scope of this article. If the sentence stays, it should probably be worded to sound less like an opinion.
Agree with above. Also I found it a little confusing, since the article makes clear that EFI seems to make it easier to update the 'bios' level then before.. And then comments about it being in the hardware. Some clarification would be great. 126.96.36.199
EFI: BIOS replacement?
I don't see the point here, EFI has nothing to do with the statment:
(EFI) is a system developed by Intel to replace the BIOS..
EFI is only a specification aimed to put a new standard in the Interface of the system Firmware; i.e: how a Specific software like an Operating System should deal with system Firmware functions, It has nothing to do with 'BIOS replacement'
UEFI-bashing is a phenomena 2ndary siources note = controversy = notableNotable/RS'd any thoughts?
I am thinking the encyclopedia can give WP:NPOV account of the controversial nature of Windows in general and Secure Boot in particular. Here is a great WP:RS for starters http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/uefi-drama.html any thoughts?Wikidgood (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)