Talk:UEFI

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UEFI article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 120 days

Apple Inc. High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

FAT

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:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx

The standard doesn't say anything about other partitions than the ESP, so that doesn't rule out MacOS.

EFI prediction

"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. 70.113.217.91

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? (added 15 March 2016)

Missing Sections: Vulnerabilities/Security Flaws

Extensible in what way? Basic Input/Out System ROM is basic. Extensible, as in extending the drawbridge for malware to take over someone's personal PC. It's not theoretical, I have seen it in practice.

All the advantages of UEFI/EFI is hype.

1. Intel CPU startup in 16-bit mode for compatibility reasons. UEFI/EFI does not change this.

2. Faster startup.  False.  Bulk of the OS still needs to be loaded from a mass storage device. 

3. More secure.  False.  UEFI creates a partition to operate from, but it's actually malware. It can redirect the PC to boot into Window PE and load Windows on the System Partition in a virtual machine and take over the PC.  Rootkit infection.  If you have seen PC infected with a Rootkit, it carves out partitions without telling you or notifying you.  You'll only find it by close examination.

76.135.37.152 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song[reply]

> Extensible in what way?

With DXE modules. I'm not saying it is particularly good, but I would say it is better extensible than a traditional x86 BIOS.

> 2. Faster startup. False.

You might be right on that one, the reference do not include any independent measurements of boot times.

> 3. More secure. False.

No. It is *more* secure. There are still security issues, but traditional BIOS had zero verification of the further steps in the boot chain. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]