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.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|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. 220.127.116.11
Obscure chart, should be edited or eliminated
The chart labeled "Interaction between the EFI boot manager and EFI drivers" fails to convey any meaning to me. It shows neither a comprehensible hierarchy, nor a flow of control. It's not clear on what principle it is based. It's also not clear what the terms "Application" and "Driver" mean in this context. It makes a distinction between "EFI binaries" in blue capsules and "Boot manager" in brown capsules, but I fail to see where those terms are defined either. I would like to see a chart that answers more questions than it brings up. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! That's a good remark. Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) to a section that describes the concepts shown on the chart, do you find it more usable now? —
Independent Drivers and Architecture
What does that mean? I've searched for a while over there and couldnt find any info. Maybe some explanation in that lines would help me and others searching for the same?