Talk:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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.

EFI prediction[edit]

"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.

Independent Drivers and Architecture[edit]

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? (added 15 March 2016)

Advantages is not time-sensitive, up-to-date, or most importantly unbaised[edit]

At the very least, we should remind the reader that this is the purported advantages from the people pushing the technology, not an unbaised assessment of what it does. To go further: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeeky (talkcontribs) 04:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Advantages" section (which is at the very top of the article) is currently as follows:

  • Ability to boot from large disks (over 2 TB) with a GUID Partition Table (GPT)[1][a]
  • CPU-independent architecture[a]
  • CPU-independent drivers[a]
  • Flexible pre-OS environment, including network capability
  • Modular design
  • Backward and forward compatibility

I note that the citation ([12] on the original document) to Microsoft (a member of the UEFI forum) no longer lists these points, but instead lists:

Firmware that meets the UEFI 2.3.1 specifications provides the following benefits:

  • Faster boot and resume times.
  • Ability to use security features such as Secure Boot and factory encrypted drives that help prevent untrusted code from running before the operating system is loaded. For more information, see Secure Boot Overview and Factory Encrypted Drives.
  • Ability to more easily support large hard drives (more than 2 terabytes) and drives with more than four partitions.
  • Compatibility with legacy BIOS. Some UEFI-based PCs contain a Compatibility Support Module (CSM) that emulates earlier BIOS, providing more flexibility and compatibility for end users. To use the CSM, Secure Boot must be disabled.
  • Support for multicast deployment, which allows PC manufacturers to broadcast a PC image that can be received by multiple PCs without overwhelming the network or image server.
  • Support for UEFI firmware drivers, applications, and option ROMs.

I invite Wikipedia editors and interested parties to list all of the ways that this collection of benefits, as worded, are invalid factually or invalid logically. As far as I can tell, the only concrete advantages listed among all of the above are:

I am sure that one could measure, quantify, and then debate the accuracy of the second point; but the first point is some combination of logical fallacies that I haven't yet been able to precisely define. Is it just false cause? At the time of UEFI proposals, but certainly at the time of > 2.2TB drive availability, OSX and 32- and 64-bit already supported drives larger than 2.2TB.

I am not a crusader against UEFI, but it never occurred to me until now to look at the history of its introduction. I think this section overall needs to be rewritten to account for this historical view (or the historical view section above needs to be improved, or merged, or something). Of the remaining reasons in the above lists, several of them were again -- already possible before UEFI:

  • Multicast deployment was possible.
  • Network boot was available.
  • It goes without saying that Legacy BIOSes were available.
  • (Can someone check if secure/encryption booting was available before UEFI?)
  • Support for UEFI drivers, programs, etc -- is begging the question.
  • Modular design is, until clarified, just buzzwords; correct?
  • Backward and forward compatibility. (Is this "just" buzzwords or is why BIOSes were not this precisely defined?)
  • (It seems like CPU independent drivers and CPU independent architecture are both also buzzards. Perhaps there is information to about CPU-independent drivers. Were there any BIOSes that worked on multiple CPUs?

    Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).