Was life better before UEFI?

No.

please stop
i'm getting flashbacks

What is kickstart firmware? Literally any embedded device will have it, just because no configuration menu exists for them doesn't mean they don't have some kind of "BIOS"

Maybe. The pros of UEFI over legacy BIOS are obvious but the security considerations (for tin foil hat wearers) are much worse.

With rare exceptions, BIOS was always shit. At least now we have Coreboot.

It does, but only by adding another OS

literally how? I suppose this depends how you define an operating system but I see no difference.

BIOS:
BIOS Op Sys -> GRUB/Syslinux -> Linux Kernel -> GNU/SystemD/etc

UEFI:
UEFI Op Sys -> GRUB/gummitboot/systemd-boot/etc -> Linux Kernel -> GNU/SystemD/etc

Where did we add another OS?

No, it was the same. Maybe even slightly worse, depending on how often and what you dealt with related to BIOS.

Other platforms than x86 have had UEFI equivalent firmwares years before x86 got it.

I don't know why people dislike UEFI, you can have UEFI with the classic BIOS configuration setup, but still having all the UEFI benefits.
I'm glad x86 is removing legacy bloat.

UEFI can even replace GRUB and boot the kernel directly for example.

>Other platforms than x86 have had UEFI equivalent firmwares years before x86 got it.
This
Holy shit did I wish we had OpenBoot on X86 after you dealt with Apple, IBM and Sun machines in the 90's and early 2000's, it was so much easier

Yes, I tried for half an hour disabling secure boot and enabling legacy boot on a shitty OEM PC. [spoiler]It didn't work.[/spoiler]

What make and model? What OS did it come with and what version? Windows 8 and 8.1 were required by MS to allow Secure boot to be turned off (by royalty OEMs). If this was an ARM-based system the rules are completely different. If it's Windows 10 MS relaxed the rules on OEMs.

Why? You can disable secure boot without having to use CSM (Legacy boot).
Also, CSM should work on any UEFI board currently, it's still a mandatory standard.

I wanted to install Windows 10 on someones PC. The USB stick that had win10 was using MBR so I tried enabling Legacy boot. The PC was from 2015 and had Win 10 installed, I don't remember the brand. I could disable secure boot and enable legacy boot but it still wouldn't boot from the USB. When the PC restarted the settings were resetted, oh yeah and I always had to enter the BIOS setup from Win10.

What does that have to do with UEFI? Do you not know what a Basic Input/Output System does?

>The USB stick that had win10 was using MBR so I tried enabling Legacy boot
Stop doing this to yourself. You can install Windows 10 from a MBR disk but boot it as UEFI. You don't have to disable secure boot or enable CSM.

Sounds like user error. Never had such problems working with dozens of UEFI platforms.
Plus I highly doubt what you're saying is true, since every Windows 10 USB sticks is also UEFI, not just MBR.

>it's bad because Im more retarded than the average
99% of Jow Forums in a nutshell, especially in the freetard crowd

UEFI era is slightly better than BIOS era.

Oh nvm, you're just stupid

The answer is one of these.

no bully pls

Attached: 1552904809549.jpg (1200x1000, 165K)

Wow. It is significantly easier to make and boot to a flash drive with a UEFI bootloader, and boards come out of the box able to easily boot either type. You fucked up because you fucked with it. Good job.

Attached: aB0w08x_460s.jpg (460x582, 53K)

It was OK... I never had any problems with a legacy bios.

Complicated answer: Yes, older interface responded with little to no flaws where as UEFI can be a bit buggy here and there depending on the vendor (with cursor/ mouse).

Personally prefer that both interfaces are still available.

Simple answer: Both interfaces function reliably enough now and keyboard function is still mostly flawless on both sides (mouse or cursor function skill sucks but less often with newer gen systems, etc) so in a way the answer could be no due to lack of significant improvement.

Argument here is old BIOS still can do or be adjusted to do the same core functions of UEFI (overclocking or manually adjusting CPU frequencies, enable XMP or similar profile equivalent, etc) without the fancy interface bloat and be reasonably usable as a GUI (even if some old navigation methods feel old or archaic, etc).

Only advantage for UEFI is BIOS is easier to understand for noobs (but not by much in my opinion, I suspect an noob user can work out and perhaps admire the older simpler interface that ultimately does the same thing without issue).

BIOS: Can directly and reliably boot any filesystem in RAID1.
UEFI: EFS must be FAT32, can't reliably use RAID1 without corruption and boot image location and naming isn't even standard so drive may straight up fail to boot on a different mainboard

to

>>master/slave
Really brings me back.

Always loved the few scenarios where having a couple or more SSDs in RAID 0 was where multiple masters worked well together (even if they were recognised as one entity) instead of the typical one master drive and multiple slave drives scenario.

Favourite scenario was two master drives working together with one slave drive which also reflects my other preference (in b4 spit roast).

Is this bait? The ESP in the *standard* is FAT32, there's nothing stopping a board vendor or skilled enough programmer from EXTENDING it. (Gee, who would have thought the universal EXTENSIBLE firmware interface could have been improved upon?). What are you talking about in regards to RAID1 without corruption? I have never heard anyone else make this complaint before and the big three server OEMs all sell UEFI systems with UEFI-compatible RAID cards and they all work just fine even up to RAID 5. Also the (fallback) boot location IS standardized. It's at /EFI/Boot/bootx64.efi .

>extended by board vendor
Oh boy, more inter-vendor incompatibility. Should I go team Apple or team Commodore this time around?

Microkernel architecture that has ABI compat with existing systems.
youtu.be/CJdWOmajo_8?t=257

IDK but rEFInd is comfy

I believe FAT16 ESP is also allowed by the spec. You are correct about everything else though. He probably ran into trouble installing Linux and had a hard time using efibootmgr.

Why does FAT32 not suit your requirements? What are your requirements?

I think you're confused, it's more than just a graphical interface. UEFI can look and feel identical to a pre-UEFI BIOS, without you being even able to tell them apart.

Uh, I used NTFS for EFP and it works fine and I never had problems with RAID1.

>person who mentions Commodore is too stupid to configure their shit right
Lol, only on Jow Forums. LARP fest

UEFI is way better than old BIOS. BIOS has so many limitations. It is a relic of its era.

>UEFI-compatible RAID cards and they all work just fine even up to RAID 5
Pretty sure the problem is what happens with fakeraid/software raid. Hardware raid shouldn't have issues but if you try to software raid your esp many efis are liable to write something to one of the array members without being raid-aware and inadvertently corrupt the array. As opposed to a mirrored boot partition under bios which just werks because bios is dumb and does absolutely nothing other than bootstrap it

>UEFI is just a interface
Why did you even post without having any idea what this is about?
Plus almost every decent board since like 2009 has been UEFI, you probably didn't even know you've used UEFI boards since they didn't have a mouse.

Never had such problems working with RAID and UEFI boards for 10 years.

>esp many efis are liable to write something to one of the array members without being raid-aware
While you're correct and honestly I hadn't considered that, it's still not a fault of UEFI, it's a fault of the implementation.

NTFS support depends on the board and isn't guaranteed. Also if you run your esp mirrored in an array it also depends on the board whether or not it will leave it alone.

The other problem is that the efi will trip over the array metadata and fail to recognize the filesystem unless it's at the end of the device, so for example on linux you need to use superblock format 0.9 or 1.0 for it to even have a chance of working. Or if you're using fakeraid that doesn't even have the option you're just sol.

No.

>using firmware RAID
You deserve it.

Hell yes, this. Openboot had some arcane syntax, but was a cli, behaved sanely, and, at least for sparc hardware, was completely accessible over a serial line. Debugging with it was a next level better than some of the beep codes you see for x86 systems.

i don't know