VIDEO: UEFI Replacing Ancient BIOS Tested

[edilee]

You know the written language on this site is english so that video was pretty much useless. A simple picture of the interface would have been enough and could have saved embedding the video. Just a thought.

 

[shin0bi272]

this has been a long time coming and its still not here. The entire bios setup is literally as old as windows 3.1 but we are still using it... WHY? We are talking BBS and aol 1.0 internet here and bios has yet to be changed? Dont get me wrong I dont want it to become like windows where its a new version ever 3 years but at least once every decade or so would be nice... just to keep things booting quickly and not have any issues with new tech.

 

[dEAne]

This is very promising.

 

[dogman_1234]

I looks nice. Hopefully it will bring stability and easier overclocking for all users.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

any news on rechargeable cmos batteries ?

 

[waethorn]

Go ahead and look at any Intel motherboard with UEFI. Your standard BIOS Setup is still there. Even the MSI board mentioned above still has a BIOS. Instead of using independent BIOS firmware from each component, the system firmware must be loaded with a driver for each component into the pre-boot environment. It's like a mini OS that boots before your existing OS, and anybody that has seen UEFI can tell you that the existing incarnations are CRAP!

Intel is the biggest backer of UEFI, and they don't even have proper RAID, AHCI, and network PXE boot drivers FOR THEIR OWN HARDWARE! AMD hasn't even committed to it yet either.

This will be YEARS off before it gains any real traction. UEFI is just another IT unicorn, like the BTX form factor.

 

[rebturtle]

So I won't have to change jumpers and solder on resistors on my old A7V133 anymore?!!

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]Sorry fellas, but UEFI does NOT replace the BIOS. It is a firmware extension to the existing BIOS only.[/citation]
It is possible to have a motherboard with UEFI and no BIOS compatibility module. Remember, BIOS runs on top of UEFI, not the other way around.

 

[waethorn]

[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]It is possible to have a motherboard with UEFI and no BIOS compatibility module. Remember, BIOS runs on top of UEFI, not the other way around.[/citation]

Actually, you're completely backwards on that - the BIOS hands off control to the UEFI just prior to boot, which is why UEFI won't replace the BIOS any time soon. This is the current implementation of UEFI that Intel Tiano has been based on, and it sucks, big time, due to the fact that you need drivers written for UEFI, and they are open source, not written by the hardware component manufacturers. You are confusing this with BIOS compatibility mode, which is a fallback boot order, and loads after UEFI attempts to boot. There are currently no released UEFI implementations that are not built on top of a BIOS, for compatibility reasons. You can blame XP holdouts for that.

Also, x86 UEFI (EFI 2.0) is not the same as EFI in Itaniums.

 

[mr_tuel]

I kinda liked the old school interface if BIOS. Makes me look more leet when I'm overclocking! Then again, I also like the modern features of EFI

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]Actually, you're completely backwards on that - the BIOS hands off control to the UEFI just prior to boot, which is why UEFI won't replace the BIOS any time soon. This is the current implementation of UEFI that Intel Tiano has been based on, and it sucks, big time, due to the fact that you need drivers written for UEFI, and they are open source, not written by the hardware component manufacturers. You are confusing this with BIOS compatibility mode, which is a fallback boot order, and loads after UEFI attempts to boot. There are currently no released UEFI implementations that are not built on top of a BIOS, for compatibility reasons. You can blame XP holdouts for that.Also, x86 UEFI (EFI 2.0) is not the same as EFI in Itaniums.[/citation]
Intel and Apple's UEFI implementation are identical. Apple's original x86 UEFI firmware didn't use a BIOS. Apple added a BIOS compatibility module later for dual booting with Windows. It is possible for hardware companies to write their own UEFI hardware drivers. For example, on Intel's newer motherboards that have 64Mb of flash memory Linksys or D-Link could write their own generic driver for their PCI ethernet network adapters. This would allow future versions of Windows to download updates at the beginning of a clean install (when booting off the DVD). This means you don't have to install a separate OS driver after installing Windows. This was one of the main reasons that EFI and UEFI were created.

 

[eddieroolz]

Man, the interface sure looks nice, and that's just the icing on the top. Hopefully UEFI will soon gain support from ALL manufacturers.

 

[waethorn]

Intel and Apple's UEFI implementation are identical. Apple's original x86 UEFI firmware didn't use a BIOS. Apple added a BIOS compatibility module later for dual booting with Windows

Sorry but that is incorrect. Intel's Tiano design is a UEFI firmware as a BIOS extension only. The information is on TianoCore.org. Apple's implementation has a BIOS emulation mode which is completely the opposite, AND it is not UEFI 2.0 compliant (which is why you can't boot off Vista SP1+ UEFI discs). They are posting in the blogs that UEFI is not ready to be a standalone firmware interface because of lack of support, and as such, must still be a hand-off from the BIOS. But still they say that this method "isn't good enough for UEFI". Without support from third parties, it will fail.

Intel's newer motherboards that have 64Mb of flash memory Linksys or D-Link could write their own generic driver for their PCI ethernet network adapters

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. But they didn't. The main reason is because of the nature of UEFI: it's open source. Most companies won't release source code for drivers, and those that do won't support full functionality. Also, Intel still won't allow companies to update 3rd-party drivers into firmware because "of security reasons". I'm sure that malware writers are having a heyday with it right now, and that's scary, but it's a valid reason to cut off third party access. Hell, Intel can't even code proper AHCI and RAID drivers for their own boards yet, not to mention that network support, and thus PXE boot, is completely absent.

This means you don't have to install a separate OS driver after installing Windows. This was one of the main reasons that EFI and UEFI were created

Absolutely 100% wrong!

 

[lp231]

In the demo at 3:16, you can see at the top left, the model for the board.
It's a P8P67 Deluxe, so it is most likely a Sandy Bridge along with Intel's 6 series chipset (P67).
Currently Asus sells their socket 1156 boards as P7s.

 

[techguy378]

@Waethorn - You may not get full functionality on a UEFI network card driver under an operating system like Windows or Linux but it is possible to get basic functionality on an operating system with nothing more than the UEFI driver. It's just like the way DOS supported basic peripherals like a keyboard by using the BIOS driver.

The Intel boards that have 64Mb of flash memory do support AHCI when doing an EFI boot. Based on Intel's documentation for my Intel DP43TF motherboard it appears that AHCI isn't available under UEFI because the motherboard has 32Mb of flash memory and there isn't enough space for the driver. On my older Intel DP35DP board Intel finally had to remove the ethernet UEFI driver for the same reason, at least in the very latest firmware release. That board only had 8Mb of flash memory.

 

[sudeshc]

why is it still taking so long..........

 

[kronos_cornelius]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]so ... when will the ancient x86 be replace ?[/citation]
Whenever Tegra 2 computers start coming out.

 

[Ubrales]

I'm willing to try UEFI after all the bugs are worked out!