backtop

Print 160 comment(s) - last by 2uantuM.. on Oct 19 at 9:20 AM

BIOS will be reportedly going the way of the dinosaur next year.  (Source: Basic Computer Skills)
Microsoft will unleash the PC's latest trick on the world next year, according to reports

The Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) isn't a familiar topic to most casual computers users, but those familiar with its history recognize it as one of the PCs worst examples of burdensome legacy code.  

Back in 1979 the BIOS were cooked up to provide compatibility for IBM clones.  Due to legal issues they had to be designed through a bizarre process -- reverse engineering of IBM's code, and then re-design based on a specification produced by the reverse engineering team (as opposed to simply directly using the reverse-engineered code).

The results worked, but were hardly outstanding examples of firmware engineering.  Today the primary role of BIOS in PCs is to load the Windows operating system's boot loader, in effect starting the OS load process, but modern BIOS retain much of the same ancient legacy code of that original BIOS -- and its many rough edges.  And what was an ungainly code to start, only became worse with time -- BIOS' difficulty in handling new types of hardware like USB peripherals is a key factor in why PCs often take a half minute or more to boot.

But the days of BIOS are about to come to an end, as is their weak performance.  Microsoft reportedly plans to force adoption of a new PC firmware interface called Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) in 2011.

Microsoft is rumored to be coming out with the successor to Windows 7 next year, dubbed "Windows.NEXT".  That successor, like the Windows 7/Windows Vista will support UEFI, but it reportedly will go a step farther, scrapping BIOS support and forcing OEMs like HP and Dell to adopt UEFI.

While UEFI is primarily the work of Intel, the world's biggest CPU maker, it is Microsoft which largely controls when UEFI mass deployment will become a reality.  Motherboard makers will also play a key role, by deploying motherboards with flashed support for the new tech.

In a recent interview with BBC News, Mark Doran the head of the UEFI forum, the organization tasked with developing and deploying the new firmware technology, comments, "At the moment it can be 25-30 seconds of boot time before you see the first bit of OS sign-on.  With UEFI we’re getting it under a handful of seconds.  In terms of boot speed, we’re not at instant-on yet but it is already a lot better than conventional Bios can manage, and we’re getting closer to that every day."

The extensible nature of this new interface helps ensure that it will be capable of dealing with whatever new PC expansions hardware makers can dream up in the next three decades.

Between enabling faster boot times and paving an easier path for new hardware, UEFI may greatly enhance users' PC experience by doing away with a tired three-decade old interface.  Even if they don't know their BIOS from their kernel, that's something most users should be able to appreciate.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What's the difference
By TMV192 on 10/4/2010 9:32:20 AM , Rating: 4
Between UEFI and Apple's EFI?




RE: What's the difference
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/4/2010 9:34:46 AM , Rating: 3
Apple's implementation has "Magic" and some extra "Boom"


RE: What's the difference
By MrBlastman on 10/4/2010 9:42:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not enough... "KaBoom" though. If did, we'd see far less of this Apple plague. :)


RE: What's the difference
By Sazabi19 on 10/4/2010 10:44:22 AM , Rating: 1
No, the KaBoom was saved for some teenage girls iPod :(


RE: What's the difference
By Golgatha on 10/4/2010 2:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
No, that's chicka boom you're thinking of.


RE: What's the difference
By Samus on 10/4/2010 7:29:30 PM , Rating: 5
The specific difference is Apple's code is based on proprietary Intel architecture where Microsoft's will be open to all chipset vendors. So nVidia, AMD and any other x86 supplier can have a compatible bootstrap interface.


RE: What's the difference
By StevoLincolnite on 10/4/2010 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Not enough... "KaBoom" though. If did, we'd see far less of this Apple plague. :)


I assume then PC users are Grey Warden's, Jobs is the Arch Demon, and all his followers are Dark Spawn.

...I suddenly have a massive urge to go on a crusade.


RE: What's the difference
By jezzza234 on 10/4/2010 2:43:03 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it pretty much every topic turns in to a hate Apple thread? Its pretty pathetic guys, and one thing that unfortunately has been turning me away from this site. If you don't like Apple then fine, but to consistently go on about them (and yes its pretty much daily) suggests an obsession.


RE: What's the difference
By MrBlastman on 10/4/2010 2:55:02 PM , Rating: 5
You can't fight a plague with a lackadaisical attitude. It requires dedication to the cause, along with persistence.


RE: What's the difference
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 3
Quit it Blastman, it's futile, you can't turn every single user on the planet into a Windows loving PC assembling OC savvy techie. It's probably easier to drink all planet's oceans than do this. Your dedication to fight the "plague" of human tech illiteracy is similar to Don Quixote's windmill fights. A funny show for the casual observer for sure, but gets boring quick, as jezzza234 noted.


RE: What's the difference
By MrBlastman on 10/4/2010 4:45:06 PM , Rating: 3
You're correct, Pirks. It is futile. There is no way I can convert an Apple zealot. I can though, with some effort, create enough of a ruckuss to perhaps cause an Apple inductee to see the error of their ways before it is too late--and take a bite out of that... Apple. ;)


RE: What's the difference
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 1
You must be totally insane if you think that every tech illiterate user out there is an Apple zealot. I'm not even going to argue with such an idiotic remark.


RE: What's the difference
By priusone on 10/4/2010 8:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's just human nature; we attach what we don't understand. Personally, my Android is rooted and my Wii plays DVD's. I am not one to deal with devices being 'locked down', nor do I subscribe to the idea that a tech company can limit my usage of a device that I purchase from them.

Sure, I know that people out there love showing off their newest toys, and Apple customers are no exception. One good reason to keep around friends who have Apple products is that you can benefit from them being so fickle. What did the new iPhone mean to me? A could iPhone 3G's to mod and give away.

My friends who have Apple products are for the most part they are happy with them. Sure, the limitations blow my mind, but all you really have to do is sit down with them and show them other products on the market that provide more freedom, and reality will come crashing down on you. My cousin likes having a physical keyboard, so I mentioned getting a DroidX. Bad idea. As a whole, the Android OS is awesome, but trying to deprogram her from iOS to Android drove me nuts. I am just thankful for return policies.

Everyone is different, with different desires in this life, so if owning an even "prettier" looking device that subsequently can't maintain a signal or one that requires even less brain cells to operate is your cup of tea, then by all means, go Apple. If, on the other hand, you like your freedom to tinker with stuff without running the risk of having Jobs brick your device, since it's best for you, then go get what almost everyone else gets, something else.

But back to ripping on Apple. If you are tired of hearing it, then go to another tech sight. People talk smack, and if you can't handle it, well my friend, you are going to play hell finding such a website, other than one run by Apple, that doesn't rip on them for their silly little mistakes and shortcomings.


RE: What's the difference
By jezzza234 on 10/5/2010 1:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, I'm expecting too much. People are always going to behave like that and I'm certainly not going to change them. Mostly I try not to read the comments at the bottom of the page because it usually just annoys me, but occasionally there's something useful hidden amongst the childish nonsense that makes it worth reading


RE: What's the difference
By abel2 on 10/7/2010 9:29:35 AM , Rating: 1
Some people just need to learn how to "read". There is no point in reading an entire comment or story word for word. A slight scanning of headlines, words, and sentences will get you the jist of the subject matter in a quicker span of time. Think efficiency.

That way you can ignore the people who get hung up on wrong word usage and/or grammar and post asinine comments relating to such. The rants get old as well as the infighting, yet there are times that they become amusing. In the end, you choose what you read and what you take from that reading.


RE: What's the difference
By epobirs on 10/5/2010 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
It appears you already are. Troll mission accomplished. This is the moment in the cartoon where you picture yourself as a giant candy on a stick.


RE: What's the difference
By kingius on 10/13/2010 5:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's probably an Apple employee who wants to associate anyone who likes Microsoft with an over the top stereo type.


RE: What's the difference
By StevoLincolnite on 10/4/2010 2:55:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why is it pretty much every topic turns in to a hate Apple thread?


Because...

* They bring it upon themselves by providing us with so much material to work with.

* They are like the next Intel Pentium 4/Exploding Sony Battery/Oil Spill Leak/Other highly criticized event/product.

* Because the Apple Dark Spawn tend to spread false truths and claim them as fact, when clearly they are not.

***
Perhaps if you read into some of the posts you will generally see it's people like Pirks who add fuel to the fire, or to catch fish... Or to be just a typical big fat troll with hairy arm pits that lives under a bridge.

But the question begs, why are you taking it to heart? It's a Tech Company, all the Tech Company's get hate and have there respective fan-boys in shiny armor ready to strike.


RE: What's the difference
By jezzza234 on 10/4/2010 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
I guess so, its just a valid question was asked about the difference between EFI that Apple uses and the UEFI being discussed here and I was actually curious about the differences myself, then had to read through several silly messages about Apple. I'm probably just in a minority with my opinions and I don't tend to post like this its just been a steadily increasing annoyance that finally broke me in to posting that message :D


RE: What's the difference
By Tony Swash on 10/5/2010 8:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess so, its just a valid question was asked about the difference between EFI that Apple uses and the UEFI being discussed here and I was actually curious about the differences myself, then had to read through several silly messages about Apple. I'm probably just in a minority with my opinions and I don't tend to post like this its just been a steadily increasing annoyance that finally broke me in to posting that message :D


The reason so many around here are Apple obsessive Apple phobes is because Apple makes so many techies anxious. They can see the amazing success of Apple, they can see the way Apple has broken into new market segments and sold millions of units over and over again, but they cannot understand why that has happened.

Lots of techies around here look at Apple products and cannot see their attractions to consumers and so the popularity of Apple products deeply disturbs them, they know something is happening but they don't know what it is, they feel out of the loop.

Its very upsetting for them because as techies they pride themselves on having more knowledge than other people and so to be confronted by a situation they just cannot explain, using their existing frame of reference, creates all sorts of unbearable tensions. Hence their Apple obsession, their endless anti-Apple rants and their ridiculous attempts to explain away Apple's success (Apple's customers are stupid, fooled by marketing, etc, etc).

I am also fascinated by Apple but for different reasons. I have used their products for over 25 years and love the stuff they have made for me. But more than that surely the biggest and most interesting story in the tech world in the last decade is the renaissance and rise of Apple from its near death experience and they way it has entered and disrupted so many established markets (music players, phones, tablets). I am always disappointed that we cannot have a sensible and informed debate on these forums about what makes Apple tick and how it can be so successful. Instead I spend my time (and luckily I have a lot of time) firefighting where I can the sillier comments from the Apple-phobes. Shame really as this forum could really raise its game if people were prepared to think new thoughts, discuss new ideas and look at things afresh when they find their old way of viewing the world keeps producing mismatches with reality.

quote:
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
  - Oliver Wendell Holmes


RE: What's the difference
By MindParadox on 10/6/2010 8:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
sadly, im a techie, and at one point or another have used just about every apple product out there

trust me, ignorance does not drive my hatred of a company that literally attempts to tell me exactly how i should and will use anything produced by them, it is the simple fact that they attempt to control the items i purchase after i have paid my money for them

i write my own apps for my phone, they may not be things you would use, or that would garner any money, but i can guarantee that i will buy a phone that i can not only write the apps but use them on my phone immediately, not subject to some "committee" somewhere deciding that my apps are worthy enough to use

oh, and by the way, its not that we dont know whats happening, we do, "People" tend to be stupid, want things easier so they can be more stupid, and will do anything to get it sadly.

Individuals tend to be different, but alas, the apple way is the "me too" attitude that wants everyone to just follow the trend


RE: What's the difference
By mudgiestylie on 10/9/2010 6:30:54 AM , Rating: 1
I'm 26, and have used Macs my whole life, and Windows PCs for a good portion of it. I remember in the 90's and being jealous that I couldn't play doom, or quake on my mac. I heard it all the time from people with DOS and every flavor of windows that macs were terrible, and no one should want one of those (this should seem ridiculous, someone preferring DOS to mac at the time, but thats OT). At that time, it was because of how unpopular macs were, that techies hated dealing with macs. Nowadays one of the reasons I hear people hate macs, or apple in general is because of how popular they are. Noone wants to "jump on the bandwagon". Its a catch 22 in the tech crowd for apple. Them using BSD wasn't geeky enough? What about their forray into distributed computing (mighty effective implementation i might add)? What exactly is it that is so bad about apple? They are the one company where keeping so much of its systems proprietary has worked out this well. PCs are good for many things, but unless you are a IT pro, or exceedingly knowledgeable, it is MUCH easier to use a mac for just about anything. The only legitimate complaints I hear are the one about it being too closed (which is proportional to the strengths of being closed) and the price. Seems like a lot of the Tech/Nerd crowd acts like they are buying PCs for the purpose of fixing them. If OCing and tweaking your RAID array or whatever is your hobby, then more power to you and Macs arent for you (though my first OC was a Performa 636CD :D). Remember computers are tools, not religious totems or political ideologies, and shouldn't be what you use as an expression of who you are... so quit bitching about people using one that isn't your preference. Its like getting angry about some idiot buying an electric chainsaw instead of a gas powered one, because we all know that gas powered chainsaws have superior torque and blah blah blah. anyone rant complete.


RE: What's the difference
By mudgiestylie on 10/9/2010 6:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
damn i should really proof read my posts.


RE: What's the difference
By DJ Brandon on 10/4/2010 3:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
Well Said Sir!


RE: What's the difference
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you read into some of the posts you will generally see it's people like Brandon Hill who add fuel to the fire
pay credit where it's due Stevo :P


RE: What's the difference
By bryanW1995 on 10/4/2010 4:09:32 PM , Rating: 5
I dunno. Apple does suck however.

Sent from my iPhone.


RE: What's the difference
By Iaiken on 10/4/2010 10:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
And it's an excellent source of sparkles...


RE: What's the difference
By mihai on 10/4/2010 5:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
6


RE: What's the difference
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the difference
By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 10:25:28 AM , Rating: 5
There aren't any Power implementations of EFI as far as I know...

Apple's EFI was introduced when they switched to Intel processors. It's based on the original EFI spec from Intel, created for Itanium processors and only more recently brought to x86 processors (currently the Core family).

UEFI is basically EFI 2.0. It's no longer strictly Intel, but several companies working together.

The difference between Apple's EFI and UEFI implementations on PCs is the version and Apple's mostly non-standard use of it.


RE: What's the difference
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 10:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There aren't any Power implementations of EFI
Yeah you're right, PowerPC Macs used Open Firmware back then


RE: What's the difference
By DrApop on 10/4/2010 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
while UEFI is Intel only


and AMD...I would assume


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/4/2010 3:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is also a member of the UEFI Forum.


RE: What's the difference
By adiposity on 10/4/2010 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 1
We have to wait longer to get computers with UEFI.


RE: What's the difference
By Argon18 on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the difference
By JazzMang on 10/4/2010 1:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
"peecee"? Really?!


RE: What's the difference
By pjpizza on 10/4/2010 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 1
Hey,

Read this, Æpple phæn boi:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-uefi-fir...


RE: What's the difference
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 4:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Lets rephrase..

'What's the difference Between UEFI and Intel 's EFI?'


RE: What's the difference
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 4:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ok.. now that we got the question right..

Almost nothing.. They are very similar, and I'm pretty sure its closer to a standard of EFI than anything.

As far as I know its just the version of EFI managed by the Unified EFI Forum.


RE: What's the difference
By sprockkets on 10/4/2010 5:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing. Currently Vista 64 bit and later support EFI, just the older version.

Apple's does have though the keys to decrypt the encrypted binaries but that is it.


RE: What's the difference
By MGSsancho on 10/4/2010 11:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Windows server 2003 as supported EFI since day one (might have to do with a version of it supporting IA64.) Might have to do with EFI started being developed over a decade ago and only recently (5~ years) been getting more support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_I...
Heck most modern operating systems support it already


AAGGHHH!!!
By Hyperion1400 on 10/4/2010 10:46:22 AM , Rating: 5
"Today the primary role of BIOS in PCs is to load the Windows operating system,"

Jason, Wikipedia, PLEASE!

The BIOS has many roles, from booting and interfacing with your PCs hardware to the rather mundane role of being a clock. It does NOT load the operating system. That is the job of the boot loader found on your root hard drive. The BIOSes job is to find and activate the boot loader.




RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By Motley on 10/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By zephyrxero on 10/4/2010 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
This brings me to my first concern upon this announcement? How well will UEFI work with other OSes like Linux or BSD? If Intel's still the main company in charge, it may not be so bad, but Microsoft's now in the driver seat I expect they'll make it difficult to run anything but Windows :/


RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By zephyrxero on 10/4/2010 12:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Phewwww.....okay. Bad reporting is just bad reporting here luckily. UEFI is controlled by the Unified EFI Forum of which Microsoft is just one of many companies involved, not in charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_EFI_Forum


RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By jvillaro on 10/4/2010 1:32:08 PM , Rating: 5
Bad reporting?
quote:
In a recent interview with BBC News, Mark Doran the head of the UEFI forum, the organization tasked with developing and deploying the new firmware technology

Maybe it´s bad reading or understanding what you read?


RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By epobirs on 10/5/2010 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that Microsoft has to commit to requiring the move forward to make it really widely used. This means cutting off a substantial number of potential upgrade OS sales in favor of advancing the platform. This is why it isn't such an obvious transition. The bulk of Windows sales in the consumer sector is for new machines but that upgrade revenue isn't trivial. In the corporate sector it's a bigger piece of the pie.


RE: AAGGHHH!!!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/10, Rating: 0
Handful?
By The Raven on 10/4/2010 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
At the moment it can be 25-30 seconds of boot time before you see the first bit of OS sign-on. With UEFI we’re getting it under a handful of seconds.

So 25-30 seconds is more than a handful for this guy, but how many seconds can his hands hold? And some people's hands are bigger than others!




RE: Handful?
By PrinceGaz on 10/4/2010 10:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
I reckon a handful is ten seconds, as that is how many fingers and thumbs most people have in total.


RE: Handful?
By MrTeal on 10/4/2010 10:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you're born next door to Chernobyl.


RE: Handful?
By PARANOID365 on 10/4/2010 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thanx 4 the 1st great laugh of the day, (It's gold Jerry, gold) :o)


RE: Handful?
By 2uantuM on 10/19/2010 9:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
You really think what you say is more important than what everybody else has to say, don't you?


RE: Handful?
By RjBass on 10/4/2010 2:32:06 PM , Rating: 3
Lol, I thought most people were born with eight fingers total and two thumbs total, but what do I know?


This is new?
By macemoneta on 10/4/2010 9:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
Back in 2001 I bought a Toshiba 5105 laptop (I still use it). It was supposed to be first of a new breed of 'legacy-free' computers. No serial ports, no parallel ports, and no BIOS. From hitting the power button to booting the OS is about 2 seconds.

I see we've come a long way in the last 9 years.




RE: This is new?
By Aloonatic on 10/4/2010 10:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
I was listening to BBC radio 5, which is the BBCs talk/sport radio station on good old AM, at work last week and they were talking about this then.

I, mistakenly it would seem, assumed that this is something that had been discussed on Daily Tech many moons ago, and I had just missed the article.

Please tell me that I am right, and that this is just a refreshers because of some press release, as it would be embarrassing for those involved with this site if BBC radio 5 (who, to give you a feeling of their level of tech knowledge also heard the expert on computers say the word "defrag" and spent as much time talking about that as this, as that was new to most of the presenters and listeners too) got their first with this.


RE: This is new?
By tastyratz on 10/4/2010 10:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This tech has been around for YEARS. Itaniums had it for 10 years now and linux was set up around the same time. What makes it news is that Microsoft just finally supported it in mainstream with x64 server 2k8/vista sp1. That's what held it up more than anything.

It's a good thing but it doesn't solve one very fundamental shortcoming - Another device driver layer at the OS level instead of handling software drivers through an OS independent unified interface.


RE: This is new?
By sleepeeg3 on 10/4/2010 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. What has changed? From the info I can dig up, I am not sure what has changed to make this tech any closer to replacing the BIOS. I can't find any big announcement from MS, suddenly declaring support for UEFI in Windows 8. As someone already said, UEFI has already been supported since Vista SP1. Google UEFI and you see articles talking about it replacing the BIOS for several years.

What we are really waiting for seems to be support from the motherboard manufacturers, according to this old article from THG about a year ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-uefi-fir...


RE: This is new?
By rennya on 10/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: This is new?
By sleepeeg3 on 10/6/2010 8:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
I read what Mick said, but I can't find any corroborative reports where Microsoft states plans to make this mandatory.


Main Purpose
By Etern205 on 10/4/2010 3:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
The main purpose for UEFI right now is due to HDD limit
Standard bios will not boot from HDD larger than 2TB and this is where UEFI comes in.

Was building a new system about a week ago and that system was using a socket 1156 motherboard by Intel. After fiddling with the BIOS, I've notice in it there was a option UEFI and was set to Disabled.

Too bad I didn't have a large drive to play with to see how this process works.




RE: Main Purpose
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 5:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
The 2TB limitation is MBR (which is only 512bytes and can only describe within its table definitions), not the Bios iteself..


RE: Main Purpose
By Etern205 on 10/4/2010 9:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Western Digital already have them 4K sector HDD out on the market which paves the way for drives larger than 2TB.

Current Bios won't be able to boot from a drive larger than 2TB, thus most who have it can only use it as a data drive instead of a system drive. UEFI changes that...

Booting from a drive larger than 2TB needs the following

1. A motherboard with UEFI support
2. The drive must be partition to GPT
3. A 64bit OS like Vista or Windows 7

If there is no limit in the bios then why we need UEFI?
Just because it will boot faster or the friendly use of a mouse?

Seriously if a person has a hard time using their keyboard navigating to the bios, they shouldn't even be in the bios at all.


RE: Main Purpose
By mino on 10/5/2010 7:54:47 PM , Rating: 3
The main MICROSOFT'S incentive is support for large HDD's.

As it is Microsoft has purposefully decided to not support GPT on BIOS systems.
This "reason" ,as it stands, is purely Microsoft-generated.

BTW, the main incentive for Intel, Microsoft and big OEM's to push EFI is to be able to control the boxen.

Think why Apple used EFI ...
Just remember, boot times had nothing to do with it.


Who cares? Bloatware is the real problem...
By tlbj6142 on 10/4/2010 9:49:47 AM , Rating: 4
Newer machines cold boot so fast now, I'm not sure why this is such an issue. The real problem is how long it takes a machine to hit an idle state after a cold boot.

Updater X needs to run, Updater Y, AV updater, Adobe, OS updater, etc. Ugh! 3 million tool tray apps spin-up, etc.

Though even the bloatware isn't much of an issue if you use standby/hibernate both of which are so much more reliable now.

Guess we have to make "progress" some how...




By supermitsuba on 10/4/2010 10:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
I wish when my computer supports S3 that it will actually be able to come back from it...damn asus, but thats off topic. I do like that S3 allows your computer to stay on without the power draw. If you have S3 working, how often will you have to turn on/off or restart your computer? Hardly ever.


Overclocking?
By vol7ron on 10/4/2010 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
What happens to overclocking w/ no BIOS? Does UEFI accomodate this?




RE: Overclocking?
By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 10:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
UEFI is just as capable of implementing a menu where you can tweak clocks and timing, yes. And you even might be able to use a mouse this time around!

But I doubt it'll be a priority in these newer implementations.

I seem to remember a while back Gigabyte said they were switching over to primarily UEFI, so they'll probably have plenty of overclocking options.


RE: Overclocking?
By vol7ron on 10/12/2010 1:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
That's good to know.

I'm still not a knowledgeable about UEFI. I'm curious what happens when you have an older video card.

I remember in the past that I couldn't load Windows, but I could enter the BIOS, which showed me it was a driver problem.

Also, the BIOS only seems to take care of one side of the startup time. What about the POST?


RE: Overclocking?
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Overclocking?
By vol7ron on 10/12/2010 1:07:58 AM , Rating: 1
The CPUs don't overclock themselves, they clock down.

For me, the ability to increase the minimum/maximum clockrate will prolong the useful life of the CPU.

I'm still running the original C2D E6600. Originally, I ran it at stock clock, but as the years go on, I increase the rate until I get to a point that a new machine needs to be built.

There is also the advantage of pushing the maximum clock to the threshold and having a suped-up PC. Then, there's the competitive enthusiast side where there are OCing competitions.


Bootcamp
By rdeegvainl on 10/4/2010 5:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Any information on whether apple will switch over to this new version of EFI, and if so, when they have the hardware for it, will that allow windows to install on a mac machine without the need for bootcamp?




RE: Bootcamp
By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 6:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
No public info on that. But if Apple implemented UEFI 2.0 (properly) or higher, then yes, Windows could be installed on Macs without Boot Camp.


RE: Bootcamp
By MindParadox on 10/6/2010 8:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
altho, not sure why, unless you wanted to dual boot, as single booting would just mean that you paid way more than anywhere else for the same pc


Not New At All
By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 10:31:06 AM , Rating: 5
UEFI support for Windows was introduced in Windows Vista SP1 x64. It's been in Windows 7 x64 from the get go, and available in most Intel motherboards for 2-3 years now. I'm booting with it today and have been for about a year now.

What is going to be new is all these up-and-coming "fast" ones. I think my UEFI implementation is just a layer on top of a legacy BIOS and thus not actually faster than legacy booting.




The REAL new in this post...
By Fritzr on 10/4/2010 3:15:03 PM , Rating: 3
EFI & UEFI have been around for years now and many motherboards use it.

Vista added support for UEFI & Win7 supports UEFI.

The item that makes the rumor that spawned this post news is that Win8 (Windows.NEXT) will NOT support BIOS. Looks like Microsoft is going to pull another WinME.

"Our new OS includes cutting edge features and therefore cannot be trusted to run on existing hardware. Please buy a new computer before installing"




RE: The REAL new in this post...
By Helbore on 10/4/2010 3:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Whilst, as a customer, I hate the notion of not being able to ipgrade my software without changing the hardware, I must admit that sometimes it is necessary. Depreciating legacy support is vital in software development and has to happen at some point.

ALso, I would disagree that it was a bad feature of WinME in stopping you from upgrading to it. It was actually doing you a great service.


UEFI won't help so much in some cases.
By greylica on 10/4/2010 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
Some cases including Raid Bioses, Sata, Iscsi, Boot from Lan, Boot from USB 2.0/3.0, and others won't be helped by a bios killing UEFI. Some basic functions still have to be maintained for compatibility.
Servers will be painfull to boot with a black screen waiting for a software CD, can you imagine this ?
Both of the systems have to be maintained, and at the user choice, one or another will be used to boot the machines, and at minimal, let users perform manintenance. That's the right thing, even using a USB key to hold Bios in order to load peripheral BIOS and perform those tasks.
Use a Mac and try to restore boot disks using RAID controllers without a CD-ROM, Jeezzz...




By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 6:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not true at all. UEFI isn't just a boot environment, it's a small operating system. UEFI drivers for disk controllers, network interfaces, USB, etc. can be installed on-disk, included in the hardware's ROM, or more commonly, will probably just be built-in to the implementation itself. UEFI.org even has a shell specification much like a DOS or UNIX command prompt, where drivers can be loaded, programs can be run, and operating systems can be booted.

Apple just doesn't use EFI to its full extent, and most of their boot process is non-standard.


Only for new hardware/OS???
By keitaro on 10/4/2010 9:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's a tad disappointing that UEFI will be around on next generation hardware. Even more so is the support to be included in Win8. However, I'm wondering what limitations or hurdles current hardware face with UEFI. Is it something that is hardwired that can't be overcome with adapting UEFI to it? Or is it the chip that holds the BIOS itself? And why Win8? What hurdle(s) does Win7 have for running on the UEFI platform?




RE: Only for new hardware/OS???
By Motley on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Only for new hardware/OS???
By jbizzler on 10/4/2010 6:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. It's been available with Windows 7 x64 since the beginning. Maybe you're thinking of the first release of Windows Vista. It was added in SP1 which was eventually on retail discs.


By US56 on 10/4/2010 5:39:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

Back in 1979 the BIOS were [sic?] cooked up to provide compatibility for IBM clones.

Not! In fact, the BIOS of the original IBM PC was an early attempt at DRM since there was nothing at all proprietary about the original PC hardware. All hardware components were standard off-the-shelf items IBM knew would be available to any cloner. The PC BIOS was conceived to inject a proprietary element into the product to raise the barrier to entry for would be cloners. At the time software wasn't patentable but the BIOS code could be copyrighted. The idea was precisely the opposite of providing compatibility for clones. It was meant to discourage cloning. IBM probably understood it would only delay cloning but they could use the time to grab a significant chunk of market share and there was always a marketing gambit they could use to continue to sell "the real thing" for some time at a hefty premium which is, of course, exactly what transpired. The original PC and later the PC/XT, PC/AT, PS/2 and many later IBM PC models enjoyed a strong loyalty for many years from government, corporate, and other business users despite the price premium. The phenomenon was explained at the time by the saying, "No one was ever fired for buying IBM."

quote:

Due to legal issues they had to be designed through a bizarre process -- reverse engineering of IBM's code, and then re-design based on a specification produced by the reverse engineering team (as opposed to simply directly using the reverse-engineered code).

That was referred to at the time as a "clean room environment" which never seemed appropriate in the case of software development but meant that no one who worked on the clone BIOS projects could have ever been contaminated by having worked on the original PC BIOS code. It was a great opportunity for a relatively few software developers who had the necessary knowledge and experience and qualified under the strict legal restrictions.

Ironically, for later and high-end PS/2 products IBM used a hybrid approach with a simpler BIOS and intermediate level code loaded from a standard device before the OS not unlike that used on their larger machines and similar to the typical 32-bit minicomputers which were eventually killed off by the 32-pit microprocessor and PC based systems. In some respects things are just coming full circle and now we're getting back to where we should have been thirty years ago.

What's amazing is that the PC BIOS lasted this long. Clearly it has not been in the best interest of end users. The BIOS developer owns your motherboard and therefore has control over your PC to some extent. That could be a subject for analysis. What is the advantage to using a full BIOS for manufacturers, Intel in particular since they dictate much about the hardware architecture of the PC, such that they didn't take the [U]EFI approach or something similar long ago?




By Jammrock on 10/4/2010 12:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
UEFI has been around for ages. Windows Vista/2008 supports UEFI, Windows 7/2008 R2 supports UEFI, Windows Server 2003 R2 supports UEFI, and many servers have UEFI BIOS's (they actually have dual mode firmware that can work as UEFI or traditional BIOS's, see the Dell PowerEdge 11G server line as an example).

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firm...

The problem is that OEM's don't want to make the jump to UEFI on consumer and business grade equipment because traditional BIOS's are cheaper to develop and produce, and are more familiar to their client base and support models.

"Windows.NEXT" (an ironic name considering Apple got Steve Jobs back buy buying NEXT) may force UEFI compliance on OEM's, but Windows OS support for UEFI has been there for a long, long time. This is why you can boot Vista/Win7 natively on "newer" Mac hardware, which uses UEFI and not a traditional BIOS, and not Windows XP ;)




It's AFT
By tallguywithglasseson on 10/5/2010 1:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's (about time) they did this.




By grcunning on 10/5/2010 8:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Today the primary role of BIOS in PCs is to load the Windows operating system's boot loader"
What do you think, we are all MS clones? How about, it loads the operating system's boot loader? We don't all subscribe to the Microsoft's heretic religion. I didn't know that this website was owned by Bill Gates(i.e. the Daily Tech God")




Psshaw....
By Goatjoe on 10/6/2010 12:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
EFI was blown away years ago by... Michael's computers!!! MX8 FTW!!!! Instant computers!!!

http://www.guado.org/mx8-proven-as-the-most-perfec...

Anyone else remember that guy??




This time when....
By swizeus on 10/8/2010 1:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Progress bar and delay doesn't look pretty anymore.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/4/2010 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
forcing OEMs like HP and Dell ...

Both Dell and HP are members of the UEFI Forum, so I think they would have something to do with when they were forcing the standard upon themselves.




Ick
By Spivonious on 10/4/10, Rating: 0
How is the BIOS responsible for slow boot times?
By 91TTZ on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: How is the BIOS responsible for slow boot times?
By Motley on 10/4/2010 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 3
Don't confuse "Quick Boot" hiding the BIOS screen information with a logo as actually being complete. Even with Quick Boot enabled, it still takes a long time before it even attempts to boot the OS. In my case, it has to initialize the Intel RAID bios, which takes 5-10 seconds to initialize, scan for USB devices (5 seconds or so), initialize my JMicron Raid array (10 seconds or so), and have my non-raid JMicron controller scan it's SATA bus (2-3 seconds).

I know there is a few other things (some of which I'm not sure exactly what it is doing), but the BIOS, even when in "Quick Boot" still takes between 30-45 seconds before it starts to load the OS.


RE: How is the BIOS responsible for slow boot times?
By 91TTZ on 10/4/10, Rating: 0
By Pastuch on 10/6/2010 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have raid enabled but I do have 7 hard drives and a usb hub. It takes my PC at least 45 seconds to get to the starting windows 7 screen. Every additional sata controller on a PC has it's own bios screen. I need three sata controllers to drive all of my devices. 7 Terabytes full, thankfully 3 TB WD greens will be out this month and I can move to a 10 Terabyte HTPC.


By bitterman0 on 10/4/2010 1:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
You realize that UEFI will not help you to speed up the POST process, right? If the Intel RAID bootstrap (I assume you are talking about an actual add-in card rather than ICHxxR) takes 10 seconds now, there's no way it is going to take less time just because it is invoked in a different way. While it may be tempting to say that UEFI is going to help some basic configurations (i.e. one HDD, no add-ons) to get through POST faster, it is not true - there are plenty of motherboards on the market right now that don't spend more than 5 seconds POSTing.

If anything, UEFI might help in standardizing (and thus making far less buggy and finally actually usable) common hardware interface in place of BIOS; in other words, it is a new and improved BIOS. Touting it as a major performance improving feature is... misleading.


By Chaser on 10/11/2010 12:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
The point of the article is that BIOS is very old and antiquated. The UEFI forum and its supporters specifically state it will speed the boot process significantly and also allow for more robust hardware support.

The old IBM BIOS standard is from 1980's or older technology and for the most part has remained dormant in terms of it's fundamental functionality. BIOS is the core or leghold for the entire PC to get off the ground. And it's an old weak link that's way overdue for replacement.

Once the baseline is improved who knows what positive effects it will have on other devices. As that is the purpose for this technology in the first place, to start at the ground level.

So your speculation is only that and compared to the designers and engineers, a guess at best. I'll take the word of the experts and see what UEFI delivers us. Without question there is a lot of room for improvement. This is way overdue.


By chick0n on 10/4/2010 11:59:56 AM , Rating: 3
that simply means you don't know jack about computers.


By 91TTZ on 10/4/2010 1:38:11 PM , Rating: 3
lol

I'm a systems engineer and have been in the IT industry since 1996.

The point that I made was correct. The BIOS does not account for much of the boot time of a computer. The laptop in front of me takes only 8 seconds from the time I hit the power button to when Windows begins to load. The vast majority of the time is taken by Windows loading drivers, starting services, contacting the domain controller and applying group policy, and running any programs listed in Startup.


By DominionSeraph on 10/4/2010 5:34:20 PM , Rating: 3
Why did 91TTZ get voted down? He's right.

I just did a Microsoft Bootvis trace on my system.
29.16 seconds post-NT Loader.
This is on a system that boots in 34 seconds from power-on.

You do the math.

If BIOS + NT Loader takes under 5 seconds, BIOS can't be taking 20 seconds, now can it?


By Etern205 on 10/5/2010 1:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
He's smart in his field (I truly respect that), but that does not mean he's a expert in everything.

Did a test on my system which contains

-bunch of HDD varies in sizes 160GB-1TB
HDD connected to M/B runs on ACHI

-2x SATA raid cards:
1 w/SATA 3Gb/s (PCIe x1)
1 w/SATA 6Gb/s & USB 3.0 (PCIe x4)

-2x IDE DVD writers

From the time the system power up till Windows loads

Quick Boot disabled: 2 minutes 27 seconds
Quick Boot enabled: 2 minutes 22 seconds

Quick Boot disabled takes an extra 5 seconds longer than Quick Boot enabled. Where does that extra 5 seconds come from?

From the bios settings, in boot order time out,I've set it to delay for 5 seconds (default is 30 seconds), and this is where that extra time came from.

Now if set the time out to 0 seconds then there will be no difference whether Quick Boot is enabled or disabled because the time for it to take to boot up will be exactly the same.

Instead of relying on quick boot to "speed up" the POST, it's better off that you manually go and adjust your BIOS settings.


By DominionSeraph on 10/5/2010 5:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
With Quick Boot disabled my system more than doubles its boot time, to 70 seconds. That is standard as full POST does a memory scan.
As for being, "better off manually adjusting BIOS settings," what do you think the BIOS setting is that bypasses the POST memory scan? Quick Boot!

There's likely something wrong with your motherboard if Quick Boot makes no difference. Quite possibly your BIOS isn't saving the system memory configuration. BIOS will ignore the Quick Boot setting and do a full POST if it thinks there's been a memory change.

Good luck fixing your rig because, Ouch. Two and a half minutes?
Again, I'm at 34 second boot times, and that's on a Dell with an ancient 80GB WD800JB that just manages to reach 60MB/sec. Even if your 1TB drive is one of the old five-platter behemoths it should still be pulling 90MB/sec.

Anyway, just for fun, let's bring this in: I support a Windows 98 machine that boots in under 15 seconds.
200MB OS paired with a modern(ish) 50MB/sec hard drive being utilized to ~1% capacity.


woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By shiftypy on 10/4/2010 9:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
I clearly remember having near instant-on dos prompt on old IBM 286 PC
Mindboggling how stuff gets slower over time


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Spivonious on 10/4/2010 10:17:11 AM , Rating: 1
Tell me about it. I installed my trusty copy of Office 2000 on my Win7 machine and a cold start of Word opens in less than a second. I had the trial version of Office 2010 on there and Word took a good 5-10 seconds to open.


By tech329 on 10/4/2010 11:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
I have Ofc 2010 Pro that I purchased running on W7/64 and it opens absolutely instantaneous. That's with a core i5 and 8GB memory.

This applies even when opening a huge Word doc.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Motley on 10/4/2010 11:51:04 AM , Rating: 3
That is a poor metric to use. I don't care if it takes 5 seconds to load an application, and I definitely don't want a "quick loader" that makes my machine boot slower just so in case I want to run that application, it can do so in 4 seconds less, thank you very much.

On the other hand, Office 2010 opens nearly instantly on my machine.


By Spivonious on 10/5/2010 10:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt it's my machine. 6GB of RAM, Core 2 Duo E6600 (a bit old, but still should be plenty for Office), Win7 x64.

Maybe I didn't use it enough to get it included in the cache. But even a fresh install, first run of Word 2000 opens nearly instantly.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By subflava on 10/4/2010 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 3
It's much easier and should be much faster for Apple to make these types of technology changes in a closed system. There's got to be some advantages to having a closed system or no one would use the model.


By MrWho on 10/4/2010 9:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Of course. That and the "we charge whatever we want because we're the only ones making it" advantage.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By MrBlastman on 10/4/2010 10:04:58 AM , Rating: 4
The number one advantage is complete control. Jobs is all about control.

I hesitated for a moment and almost posted it as profits, but then I remembered how Apple almost failed in the 90's, and they were very much a closed system even then.

Closed systems almost always benefit the manufacturer and IP holding company, and almost never benefit the consumer in the long run. They might help to keep quality high early on, but eventually the consumer will suffer.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
By Hyperion1400 on 10/4/2010 10:47:45 AM , Rating: 5
"Closed system -> no such thing, why? At least you always know who to blame :P"

Four words: You're holding it wrong.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By nafhan on 10/4/2010 11:03:06 AM , Rating: 3
It depends on your definition of "suffer". To me, paying almost twice as much for a similar product is "suffering". I'm perfectly happy to trade the closed system advantage for $500, and did so recently.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Raraniel on 10/4/2010 2:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of how high my income eventually becomes, the fact remains that I can build a windows based machine with significantly more power than a Mac at the same price point.

1200 dollar Mac? All that makes me think is RAID 0 Solid State Drives on a windows based machine. 2000 dollar Mac? High end liquid cooling here I come.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By nafhan on 10/4/2010 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Great analogy.
If you're trying to impress someone with how much you paid for your car, go for the Acura. If you're trying to do some heavy lifting, the truck would make more sense. There's also great cars that cost less than either one. It just depends on what you're trying to do.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 4:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It just depends on what you're trying to do
Thanks for proving than FAR FROM ALL people crave only for POWER as Raraniel mistakenly assumed above.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Raraniel on 10/4/2010 4:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think perhaps my point was misrepresented. My argument goes beyond 'power'. If I interpreted your initial point correctly, you state that people with the means should be interested in Macs because they represent a higher (read: Luxury) consumer experience.

My counterpoint is that regardless of how well apportioned my finances become, I (and I suspect there are many like me) would never choose a Mac, as I would be paying a premium for something I'm not likely to use (bragging rights of owning a Mac, customer support, a stylish design, etc).

There are a number of reasons to own a Mac, however most of them fall under the category of proprietary software (Graphic design and composing software to name a few) that might not be as well represented in the consumer marketplace on Windows based machines.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 5:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you state that people with the means should be interested in Macs because they represent a higher consumer experience
Exactly, it's just that different people understand luxury experience in different ways. Some crave pure power (like yourself), while others don't care that much about pure power, they rather crave pure comfort and pampering (these are the Mac users usually ;), and soft silent ride, and lack of malware, etc etc, you got the idea.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By acer905 on 10/4/2010 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
And some people prefer to be able to take a device, use it productively, customize it however they want, fix it when it has an issue, upgrade it when it gets old, and spend less money on it.

The biggest flaw in creating a culture of people who do not understand technology, how it works, how to fix it, what it should actually be able to do, is that it lowers expectations of intelligence, which in turn lowers actual intelligence. Some people enjoy understanding how something works, rather than breaking it down to "magic."


By Pirks on 10/5/2010 1:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you mix real intelligence with ability to assemble PC and install/tune Windows on it, these two are VERY different things. Some best mathematicians I've known in my grad school were total computer idiots incapable of understanding the simplest error messages Word or whatnot was showing on their screens. Now these guys work in Cali earning some BIG bucks and where am I, a techie that's supposed to be "intelligent"? Stuck in commie Canada for life :( Go figure who's real intelligent here.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By nafhan on 10/4/2010 2:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
If I had more money, I'd buy different stuff. Yep...
That said, from a "consumer satisfaction" POV, I'm completely happy. Paying more money for something I don't need would have lowered my satisfaction.
For someone who needs a computer that was configured exactly like one of the Mac laptops, they aren't that bad of a deal. However, I basically needed a reliable machine with a minimal level of performance (Athlon II dual core 2.1 GHz, similar to low end Macbooks). I got what I needed for $380. I couldn't even get an iPad for $380, much less something I could do work on. Plus, I can do some light gaming a lot easier with a Windows machine, which certainly provides me with some value.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 3:55:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If I had more money, I'd buy different stuff
Oh really? If you had more money you'd still buy a cheapo basic $380 PC? And if you had A LOT more money and could afford it, YOU'D STILL go for cheapo basic used Chevy instead of a brand new upscale car like Lexus or Prius or something like it? Come ooon man, who's gonna belive you on THAT?? :))) hehehe


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By nafhan on 10/4/2010 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
No...
quote:
If I had more money, I'd buy different stuff.
I think you might be reading sarcasm into a statement that doesn't have any.
I'm pretty sure if I had piles of cash to blow, I'd probably spend it on stuff that I don't need, but I'm not sure why. Neither a nicer car nor a more expensive laptop would add anything to my life. Peer pressure?
Oh well... starting to get a bit metaphysical, I'm done for today!


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 4:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither a nicer car nor a more expensive laptop would add anything to my life
Nice try at self persuasion here :)))


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By MindParadox on 10/6/2010 9:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
i inherited a bit over 200k when i was 21, still drive my 88 nissan sentra coupe, cause it runs and doesnt give me trouble.

i live in a smallish house(2 bedroom) but i have all the tech toys i want, 360, ps3, wii, several self built computers. never once did i think of buying an apple product because A: my phone is also an MP3 player (its a samsung mythic) i game, ALOT, and i simply prefer to be able to run 99% of the software thats released with little or no trouble

your statement of making/having more money automatically means you buy overpriced things doesnt work

i paid just over 2200 for my current system, all parts including monitor keyboard and mouse included, no OEM had anything even close to what i wanted(im specific with what parts i want) but the closest i could get, was an earlier gen processor, lesser video card, and at the time, vista 64 bit wasnt even offered as a choice, would have cost me just under 9 grand

who in their right mind pays that much when they have alternatives? oh, right, the ignorant


By Pirks on 10/6/2010 10:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i inherited a bit over 200k when i was 21, still drive my 88 nissan sentra coupe
well, 200k is not that large of a money to buy better car, but if you inherited a couple of mil you'd probably buy some nice electric thing.

I wouldn't replace my 88 old beater if I had only 200k too btw

with regard to your PC I agree, this is right choice for a techie, but if you were tech illiterate you'd probably invested a couple of grand in smth like iMac by now (and kept playing ALOT on consoles, since you can't play PC versions of recent Halo, GeoW, Uncharted, The Darkness, Alan Wake, etc etc)


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Flunk on 10/4/2010 9:42:21 AM , Rating: 4
Then why does it still take longer to boot up my buddy's MacPro than my cheapo $350 HP laptop?


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Flunk on 10/4/2010 9:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
That should have read Macbook Pro


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Luticus on 10/4/2010 9:54:24 AM , Rating: 1
i second this. my q6600 8gb ram pc with win7 is significantly faster than my work core i7 2.66ghz w/ 8gb ram in boot times, speed, and pretty much everything it does. infact i find my win 7 vm on my macbook pro to be more responsive and stable than the HOST operating system.... mac's alright but i truely don't get the hype, nor would i EVER purchase one with my own money. good thing i got this from work :)


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Luticus on 10/4/2010 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
oops, i should clarify the the core i7 system is a macbook pro...

so it should read:

i second this. my q6600 8gb ram pc with win7 is significantly faster than my work core i7 2.66ghz w/ 8gb ram MACBOOK PRO in boot times, speed, and pretty much everything it does. infact i find my win 7 vm on my macbook pro to be more responsive and stable than the HOST operating system (osx leapord).... mac's alright but i truely don't get the hype, nor would i EVER purchase one with my own money. good thing i got this one from work :)

please disregard the misunderstanding from my origional post.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Luticus on 10/4/2010 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
oops... SNOW leapord.... 10.6 my apologies again.

here's a copy/paste of the about... now you tell me:

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro6,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 4 MB
Memory: 8 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: MBP61.0057.B09
SMC Version (system): 1.58f16


By Luticus on 10/4/2010 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
here's the software info:

System Version: Mac OS X 10.6.3 (10D2094)
Kernel Version: Darwin 10.3.1


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Veerappan on 10/4/2010 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Q6600 = Quad Core (2.4Ghz?)
i7 Macbook = 2.66Ghz Dual Core w/ HT

It may not always make the difference, but the fact that the 6600 has 4 physical cores could be responsible for some of the performance delta.

It could also have something to do with the difference in speed between a 3.5" desktop hard drive (7200rpm?) and a 2.5" laptop hard drive.

By default, MacOS X 10.6 boots into 32-bit mode. You can change this behavior by either holding '6' and '4' during the initial boot sequence, or you can set the default through software. If you're running 64-bit windows 7 and 32-bit Mac OS, that could skew the comparison.

Or lastly, there could just be differences between Mac OS and Win7 for the specific workload you're running. I run both on a regular basis, and I find that they each have their strengths and weaknesses.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By solarrocker on 10/4/2010 2:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
My i7 is 4 core with 4 HT,giving a core count of 8. Of course 4 are virtual.

Are there any Core i7 processors with fewer then 4 cores, think they come only with 4-6 cores and then same amount in HT extra, so 8-2?


By Luticus on 10/4/2010 2:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are there any Core i7 processors with fewer then 4 cores, think they come only with 4-6 cores and then same amount in HT extra, so 8-2?

i thought this the case too. the infomation i posted was simply a copy/paste of the "about this mac" info. it could be reporting incorectly because i have a virtual xp and 7 active currently? I don't know why it would do this nor do i care to close down a vm and test it but this could be the case. it could also just be reporting incorrectly period. who knows, but that's the information that came off the about page.


By Luticus on 10/4/2010 2:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It may not always make the difference, but the fact that the 6600 has 4 physical cores could be responsible for some of the performance delta.

While i'd normally be inclined to agree with you here i'm simply talking about doing things like booting, running browsers, and email support... etc. not very intensive tasks, safari is slow, firefox hangs like crazy (even without addons) pretty much the only native browser that does good that i've tried is opera and it doesn't support domain authentication in osx (browsers fault not osx's).

I also agree with the hard disk statement, that could indeed cause slower booting. i also have a windows 7 laptop running 32bit ult and it boots faster, with a core duo processor and 2gb ram.

A buddy of mine always says how fast and stable his mac is and then i go watch him use it, turns out he only opens and hand full of apps at a time in most cases where as i tend to use half the computer at once (something all of my windows machines can ususally handle with respect to their ram).

i'm not trying to say mac is bad or anything, just that i don't see it as "better" and it certainly doens't have instant boot or under 10 second boot times. i'm simply trying to put things in to perspective and i say that if windows manages to get instant boot times they aren't catching up to osx they are passing osx... something i feel they did a long time ago anyway seeing as EVERY other desktop os for the consumer market supports simple things like desktop transparency.

don't get me wrong, i definatly see some hardware benefits to mac, such as it's dc adapter plug and its multitouch tracpad. I'd like to list the backlit keybaord as well but there are plenty of nicer windows machines that have that feature stock.

Good points though and on some counts i think you are right.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 4:29:15 PM , Rating: 1
Pirks stop talking out of your ***

Daemons are the same thing as services. Are you actually trying to imply that OSX has more?


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 5:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Daemons are the same thing as services
So what? Does it change anything about what I said?
quote:
Pirks stop talking out of your
Excuse me, Sir, could you be a little bit more clear? Thank you.
quote:
Are you actually trying to imply that OSX has more?
More of what? Daemons? If you mean daemons, then yes, OS X may have more daemons than Windows. Is that a real big surprise for ya omni? ;)


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 6:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More of what? Daemons? If you mean daemons, then yes, OS X may have more daemons than Windows. Is that a real big surprise for ya omni? ;)
I'm starting to wonder if you even own an OSX box.. ~20 daemons running by default on my basically stock machine.. Not even close to Windows.

If I were to turn off some of services I don't really need in Windows, it could actually boot up faster.

Other things such as network drives, raid arrays, hd count in general can and will impact startup speed in the first place.. so its hard to if a fair comparison is being made when users are timing their startups in the first place.


By Pirks on 10/5/2010 2:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
Stock? Who was talking about stock? I didn't.

There are things called applications, and they may contain their own daemons. People install these things, and guess what happens then? :P


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By AstroCreep on 10/4/2010 10:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm...you do realize that EFI is an Intel thing, right? Apple merely utilized it earlier than the rest of the x86 industry (Dell started using it a couple of years ago; at least with Latitudes).

You're an "Apple" guy, right; not an "Intel" guy? Why are you gloating if it's not an Apple technology?


By Pirks on 10/4/2010 11:09:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why are you gloating if it's not an Apple technology?
'cause Apple got it way faster in the mass consumer products than others


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By theapparition on 10/4/2010 11:14:27 AM , Rating: 5
We could also say, "Congrats Apple fanboys, Windows did x86 so long ago I don't even remember" ;P

Apple ONLY did EFI so thier OS couldn't be installed on any other computer (easily).

Don't for one second think they did it for any technical reasons other than attempted control of thier platorm.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Helbore on 10/4/2010 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's good when control of the platform also means better machines for consumers. This is what I call smart commercial design/engineering.


That would be good. It doesn't really apply to Apple, though, does it?

Or have I imagined all the articles I've read about Apple quality issues over the years?


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/4/2010 4:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
you have imagined the lack of quality issues with Apple's competitors


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Helbore on 10/5/2010 6:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
Please point to where I said that I thought Apple's competitors had no quality issues.

I'm not the one making erroneous fanboy claims about a company's lack of quality issues. You're thinking of yourself there.

This isn't sport or politics or any other situation where you support one team and bash the other (and its often justy as silly when people do it with sport and politics, too. But that's another conversation entirely). Apple have quality issues with some of their products. So do their competitors. You make yourself look foolish whenever you pull this "us vs. them" stupidity.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/5/2010 8:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
well, you gonna have hard time trying to prove that common random manufacturing defects have ANYTHING to do with the fact that Apple's platform is better for tech illiterate mass consumer because of the tighter manufacturer's control over it


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Helbore on 10/5/2010 11:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
So you can't point to where I said that I thought Apple's competitors had no quality issues.

In other words, you're just ranting. You carry on beating that straw man, Pirks. It obviously makes you feel better, even if it makes you look like a fool to everyone else.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/5/2010 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
So you can't point to the connection between Apple's quality issues and the fact that their control over their platform is better for the consumer.

In other words, you're just ranting. You carry on beating that straw man, Helbore. It obviously makes you feel better, even if it makes you look like a fool to everyone else.


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Helbore on 10/5/2010 1:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Way to show you have no clue what a strawman is!


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By Pirks on 10/5/2010 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Way to show you have no clue what the topic we discuss is!


By Helbore on 10/7/2010 2:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
What are you, twelve or something? All you can do is slightly alter my posts and throw them back.

Jezz, you were wrong. Just admit it and take it like a man. You said I was imagining that Apple's competitors had no quality issues. I never said or implied that. You just assume that anyone who criticises Apple must be a fanboy for the other side.

It only works like that in the school playground, Pirks. In the real world, we don't get obsessed with "who's phone/computer/games console/penis extension kit manufacturer is the bestest." That's what kids do.

You know what, I think you probably are only twelve. No use trying to argue logic with a child.


By JakLee on 10/4/2010 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or have I imagined all the articles I've read about Apple quality issues over the years?


No,
I think you were reading it wrong.

<Thank you Mr Jobs!>


RE: woohoo finally WE CAUGHT UP WITH MAC!
By omnicronx on 10/4/2010 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree with that at all..

Apple probably never will care about legacy users. That along with the fact that they basically had zero market share when they implemented EFI meant little legacy users complaining in the first place.

Simply put, MS just can't do that. Until the day we get a compelling reason to switch, its just not going to happen in the PC world.

EFI is much better than the original BIOS, there were many reasons to go in that direction and quite frankly Apple made the right choice here.

FYI: Windows 7 supports EFI, and I even think Vista did too, although it was of an older spec. Is MS trying to lock us out too?


By theapparition on 10/6/2010 1:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is MS trying to lock us out too?

Nice try,
If that was the case, then Apple would have used EFI from Intel off the shelf. As it was, they used a highly customizable proprietary version that diabled other OS's with embedded EFI from installing.

No buying motherboards with EFI and installing OSX. No strait install of programs that use EFI onto Apple hardware. It's always been about control.

Yes, there are hacks, but by far very few considering the entire market.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki