http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new..._two_parts_rad
What do you think? lol
Printable View
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new..._two_parts_rad
What do you think? lol
interesting, but i don't think it's really necessary.
hah are we going to start getting BSOD's in the bios menu now?
BIOS settings are meant to change a few parameters quickly - to those who know what they are doing.
This rubbish won't help those who don't know what they're doing - only annoy the other camp.
I sure hope the old stuff remains functional and we have to worry about DLCs coming out soon!
with luck the UEFI will become less "shiny" and more useful. I hate to say it, but look to apple. The ipod classic menu. split the screen, have the options on the left, and a picture of the "area" like they are trying to do now, then have actual, useful descriptions on the right. instead of the current bios where its a giant enigma as to what the setting does half the time.
SSSHHH!! Those secrets keep 3/4 of these forum users employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by diluzio91
I read somewhere that mobo makers are saying the cmos system is outdated, and most will be (or should be?) switching to newer, faster, and easier to use systems like this UEFI. The specific article I read (I can't find it now, of course) said that everything else has been updated, why not the BIOS system?
The UEFI can go much further in depth, be more specific as to identifying problems, and a few other things, w/e.
As with any major change, some people will balk at it, but I think this is the way it's going, and eventually people will get used to it, and the ol CMOS bios we use today will be looked upon as foreign and ancient as, MS-DOS
Hell isn't there a physical limit as to what the Bios can support as far as hard drive density goes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_Hardware
like 3.5 tera byte or something like that?
That was something else I read, but I'm not familiar enough with it to talk about it without sounding like I'm just talking out of my ass.
Something like, CMOS supports 2.2 TB, while UEFI supports 9.4ZB cause it uses GUID instead of MBR.
Sound like I'm quoting? That's because I am. This actually isn't the particular article I read a while back, but it still is a good read.
http://www.howtogeek.com/56958/htg-e...lace-the-bios/
Firmware support to address the latest capacities and bandwidths on SATA or USB or PCIe or whatever can always be reflashed and updated regardless of whether it's an ugly text BIOS or fancy 3D UEFI. The actual BIOS - that is, the actual functionality which interfaces with and governs hardware function - will still occupy much the same dataspace as it already does, since such stuff depends on the capacities of the mobo-mounted hardware which tends to only change in gradual increments.
I don't see a graphic interface with 3D artwork being an improvement since it will only invite more people to poke around, people who really shouldn't be there ... or it will factory-preset generic "smart" settings where advanced users would want fine control. Plus it'll introduce more complexity and failure points into a part of the system which is too critical to fail ... GUIs are notorious memory hogs and the ugly truth is that errors involving 3D graphics hardware are sometimes quite tenacious. I'd hate to try fixing up a broke system when the fancy 3D interface to access the firmware configuration won't work because some cheap dumbass thought his cursor clicks could add 1.6GHz or 16GB or whatever to his computer.
UEFI application standards seem to be evolving which specify the firmware area can address many GB stored on dedicated SSD components, as opposed to ye olde BIOS SETUP program which is usually stuffed into a ~4Mb corner on somebody's "SuperIO" mobo microcontroller. This "storage memory" basically exists to service the hardware platform itself, it is not directly useful for actual computing. My expectation is that, as always, it won't take very long for a massive increase in available memory to be followed by a massive increase in bloat. I'd have to ask why 20GB or 80GB is needed to run a program which does the same thing as one which fills less than 4GB, or why all sorts of wondrously advanced yet inexplicable and useless Intel and Microsoft code components and libraries are suddenly required. Maybe that's just me, I really hate bad code. And corporate code is the worst.
UEFI specs are calling for standardized interfaces to the OS, so you should be able to get "real time" reporting between the two. It'll also dedicate part of the storage space towards holding the actual driver code needed for each piece of hardware. This is one feature I really like a lot, although it's hardly necessary to establish an entirely new paradigm for something which could be readily adapted to existing BIOS firmware ... still, it'll be cool and nice to have. Assuming it will work on linux and other OSes which aren't the latest/greatest version of Windows. And assuming we're just talking about the core driver code, not whatever full-blown Catalyst or GeForce or whatever application suites are bundled in, let alone whatever "value added" junkware gets bundled in as well.
They're also working out autoupdate features, so the firmware will just continuously take care of itself just like Windows updates and such stuff. Dunno if I like this; in my mind you don't reflash firmware unless it's not working or the new version corrects a bug or enables meaningful new capabilities ... constantly reflashing that chip over and over is just asking for trouble. I also don't like the idea of an evil corporation (let alone a whole pack of them) being able to arbitrarily reconfigure my BIOS and drivers on a whim. Let alone the inevitable new security problems which code hackers are likely to exploit. My first UEFI mobo is going to have a physical jumper on the chipware write-enable pin, even if I have to solder it in myself. I might even go so far as to piggyback another "backup" chip which I keep codelocked.
And thus, is a main debate between Windows and Linux.:whistler::whistler:Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad
And thus my hesitations over UEFI ... I'm not confident I really want VistaBIOS to replace my ugly old lightweight working text interface. Small code runs faster.
Having recently setup a computer with Asus' version, it seems kinda silly. I mean the automotive looking gauges for CPU speed and such really don't provide any more info than the old text did. In fact, when you go into the advanced section of the UEFI it's just a more colourful version with mouse scrolling added.
I agree with Konrad that updating BIOS files really should only happen when there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Would hardware manufacturers cover the loss of components and productivity when they tried to autoupdate you and it failed, rendering your computer useless?
I welcome an upgrade to BIOS but I don't want to see a gaudy "BoyRacer" look take over the bios.
I just want to have proper support for high Resolution monitors, Maybe A nicer font and a clean background.
Mouse support would be nice but isn't necessary and i imagine adds to the complexity.
I like my BIOS! It works, and is functional!
I wouldn't mind better-looking, but to a point.
I don't like mouse-driven BIOSes; at least give me a choice between purely keyboard-driven and keyboard-and-mouse!
Generic "Legacy USB" mouse drivers are already encoded into the BIOS. I'm all for mouse support, we have to assume that there might be times when BIOS settings can test or somehow correct keyboard faults.
I sorta think it should be more like Mario bros 3 for NES...on the Wii
It's updated, it looks fresh, its got a colorful background with a higher resolution and a couple new features and support for new hardware...
But its still mario bros 3
Will be interesting to see if there are any teething issues.
If? :whistler:Quote:
Originally Posted by simon275