|
|
Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
the input/output system is the new EFI?
(Extendable File Interface)
....or just the regular old BIOS?
(Basic Input Output System)
I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
I am a clueless dummy, myself.
I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
was not suitable for my needs.
Mark-
|
|
I think you may be somewhat confused. There is nothing to my knowledge
(forgive me if I'm mistaken) that is taking the place of BIOS.
"Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message
news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
>
> Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
> the input/output system is the new EFI?
>
> (Extendable File Interface)
>
> ...or just the regular old BIOS?
>
> (Basic Input Output System)
>
>
>
> I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
> getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
>
> Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
>
> I am a clueless dummy, myself.
>
> I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
> was not suitable for my needs.
>
> Mark-
|
|
Look up the definition of 'extendable' and do a google search for EFI.
"Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message
news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
>
> Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
> the input/output system is the new EFI?
>
> (Extendable File Interface)
>
> ...or just the regular old BIOS?
>
> (Basic Input Output System)
>
>
>
> I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
> getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
>
> Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
>
> I am a clueless dummy, myself.
>
> I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
> was not suitable for my needs.
>
> Mark-
|
|
Learn something new every day. Go to www.microsoft.com and search for 'EFI
and Windows Vista'
"Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message
news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
>
> Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
> the input/output system is the new EFI?
>
> (Extendable File Interface)
>
> ...or just the regular old BIOS?
>
> (Basic Input Output System)
>
>
>
> I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
> getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
>
> Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
>
> I am a clueless dummy, myself.
>
> I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
> was not suitable for my needs.
>
> Mark-
|
|
Oh yes there is:
Extensible Firmware Interface
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
How soon will it replace BIOS, I don't know. Who knows maybe something
else will replacr EFI... From what I have read, IIRC, apparently the
changes in the Vista Boot process were in part made to permit or help
booting EFI devices.
John
Unknown wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I think you may be somewhat confused. There is nothing to my knowledge
> (forgive me if I'm mistaken) that is taking the place of BIOS.
> "Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message
> news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net...
>
>>Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
>>
>>Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
>>the input/output system is the new EFI?
>>
>>(Extendable File Interface)
>>
>>...or just the regular old BIOS?
>>
>>(Basic Input Output System)
>>
>>
>>
>>I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
>>getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
>>
>>Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
>>
>>I am a clueless dummy, myself.
>>
>>I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
>>was not suitable for my needs.
>>
>>Mark-
>
>
>
|
|
Yep! I was wrong. That'll teach me to shut up until I'm sure.
"John John" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uFGGRgDtHHA.1728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Oh yes there is: > > Extensible Firmware Interface > http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/> > How soon will it replace BIOS, I don't know. Who knows maybe something > else will replacr EFI... From what I have read, IIRC, apparently the > changes in the Vista Boot process were in part made to permit or help > booting EFI devices. > > John > > Unknown wrote: >> I think you may be somewhat confused. There is nothing to my knowledge >> (forgive me if I'm mistaken) that is taking the place of BIOS. >> "Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message >> news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net... >> >>>Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g> >>> >>>Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether >>>the input/output system is the new EFI? >>> >>>(Extendable File Interface) >>> >>>...or just the regular old BIOS? >>> >>>(Basic Input Output System) >>> >>> >>> >>>I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk >>>getting stuck with the older BIOS system. >>> >>>Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry. >>> >>>I am a clueless dummy, myself. >>> >>>I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that >>>was not suitable for my needs. >>> >>>Mark- >> >> >> >
|
|
"Mark Conrad" wrote, in part:
| Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
|
| Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
| the input/output system is the new EFI?
|
| (Extendable File Interface)
|
| ...or just the regular old BIOS?
|
| (Basic Input Output System)
_____
The operative sentence is "EFI is the next-generation firmware model, set to
replace the legacy BIOS in the coming decade." (see
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/efibrief.mspx .)
Find another vendor.
Phil Weldon
"Mark Conrad" <noneof[ at ]urbusiness.invalid> wrote in message
news:noneof-58DC36.11405021062007[ at ]news.west.earthlink.net...
|
| Generally the sales staff is clueless,<g>
|
| Is there any easy way to fire up a new computer and determine whether
| the input/output system is the new EFI?
|
| (Extendable File Interface)
|
| ...or just the regular old BIOS?
|
| (Basic Input Output System)
|
|
|
| I need a brand that sports the newer EFI system, do not want to risk
| getting stuck with the older BIOS system.
|
| Sorry for this somewhat technical inquiry.
|
| I am a clueless dummy, myself.
|
| I was told to ask this question here, to avoid buying a computer that
| was not suitable for my needs.
|
| Mark-
|
|
In article <uFGGRgDtHHA.1728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Extensible Firmware Interface
Ah, so that is what EFI stands for. Just shows how clueless I am about
anything pertaining to EFI.
What little I have read about it when I did Google searches was that it
is supposed to be the 'Next Great Thing'.
Didn't Microsoft originate EFI about 8 years ago, seems I read that
somewhere.
Another 'tale' I read somewhere is the the PC hardware manufacturers
would not tolerate switching their hardware to support EFI.
Yet another tale is that those PC manufacturers would relent "in a few
years" and support EFI after all.
Wonder how many of these tales one can believe.
Supposedly, Apple already runs EFI in their new computers.
Oh well, guess I will 'wonder' about something else, this EFI seems to
be a blind alley as far as PCs are concerned.
Mark-
|
|
Mark Conrad wrote:
[Quoted Text] > In article <uFGGRgDtHHA.1728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, > John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: > > >>Extensible Firmware Interface > > > Ah, so that is what EFI stands for. Just shows how clueless I am about > anything pertaining to EFI. > > What little I have read about it when I did Google searches was that it > is supposed to be the 'Next Great Thing'. > > Didn't Microsoft originate EFI about 8 years ago, seems I read that > somewhere. > > Another 'tale' I read somewhere is the the PC hardware manufacturers > would not tolerate switching their hardware to support EFI. > > Yet another tale is that those PC manufacturers would relent "in a few > years" and support EFI after all. > > Wonder how many of these tales one can believe. > > > Supposedly, Apple already runs EFI in their new computers. > > > Oh well, guess I will 'wonder' about something else, this EFI seems to > be a blind alley as far as PCs are concerned. > > Mark-
Like someone else said in another post, find another vendor for your
needs! This is not the kind of thing that you can walk in to a big box
store or a Geeks-R-Us store and expect high school kids with part time
jobs to help you with! Even experienced and knowledgeable computer
sales people have little to no information on this because it is so new
and at this time it is generally only used on expensive high end
multi-processor server boards. Why do you *absolutely* need this?
Yes, the Intel Mac are supposed to have EFI, but that is as much as I
know about EFI and Macs, you would have to ask on a Mac newsgroup for
more help with that. EFI was developed by Intel, not Microsoft, Intel
initially developed it for their Itanium processor. The type of
motherboard that will most likely have EFI will be high end server
boards. If you really want to be sure get an Itanium board, I am 99.99%
sure that these are EFI boards, they can only be booted with EFI and you
will need an Operating System capable of running on Itanium, like
Microsoft's IA64 Server products. The thing (Itanium board) is going to
cost a small fortune.
Other than that you should email Intel and ask them for advice and
recommendations. They do sell high end server boards that use EFI.
Another vendor that would almost certainly be able to advise you would
be HP, their high end server products would probably have something to
suit you. Other than that you can try the high end motherboard
manufacturers like Tyan or Supermicro, they may be able to offer
something that would fit your budget and needs. And when I say "budget"
don't expect "budget" priced boards, even the cheapest of these boards
will be pricey!
As I said earlier, you will need good vendor support to properly select
and use these boards. These are not the kind of products where you can
rely on some guy in a call centre half way around the world to help you
with when things don't work, the problems you are likely to run in will
not be on their scripted answer sheets! You will need to have a close
working relationship with reliable partners for your project to be
successful, you will need to work with support engineers and sales staff
at a higher level than the ones you get when you dial published sales
and support phone numbers.
John
|
|
Well, it looks like I stuck both feet in my mouth at the same time
here... I will now try to pull them out, one at a time!
It appears that almost any run of the mill Intel board is EFI capable:
Intel® Desktop Board D945PLRN
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d945plrn/sb/cs-021641.htm
Intel® Desktop Board D915PDT
http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d915pdt/
Intel® Desktop Board D865PCK
http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d865pck/
I found no Core-Duo board documentation that specifically states EFI
compatibility but if the above are, I would think that the newer Core2
boards must also be EFI capable.
However, having an EFI capable board and actually using it is another
matter. Reminds me of computers shiping with USB ports when the newest
Windows was Windows 95A or Windows NT4. More on that later in another
post, when I will attempt to remove my other foot from my mouth and post
my other findings on EFI.
John
John John wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Mark Conrad wrote: > >> In article <uFGGRgDtHHA.1728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, >> John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> Extensible Firmware Interface >> >> >> >> Ah, so that is what EFI stands for. Just shows how clueless I am >> about anything pertaining to EFI. >> >> What little I have read about it when I did Google searches was that >> it is supposed to be the 'Next Great Thing'. >> >> Didn't Microsoft originate EFI about 8 years ago, seems I read that >> somewhere. >> >> Another 'tale' I read somewhere is the the PC hardware manufacturers >> would not tolerate switching their hardware to support EFI. >> >> Yet another tale is that those PC manufacturers would relent "in a few >> years" and support EFI after all. >> >> Wonder how many of these tales one can believe. >> >> >> Supposedly, Apple already runs EFI in their new computers. >> >> >> Oh well, guess I will 'wonder' about something else, this EFI seems to >> be a blind alley as far as PCs are concerned. >> >> Mark- > > > Like someone else said in another post, find another vendor for your > needs! This is not the kind of thing that you can walk in to a big box > store or a Geeks-R-Us store and expect high school kids with part time > jobs to help you with! Even experienced and knowledgeable computer > sales people have little to no information on this because it is so new > and at this time it is generally only used on expensive high end > multi-processor server boards. Why do you *absolutely* need this? > > Yes, the Intel Mac are supposed to have EFI, but that is as much as I > know about EFI and Macs, you would have to ask on a Mac newsgroup for > more help with that. EFI was developed by Intel, not Microsoft, Intel > initially developed it for their Itanium processor. The type of > motherboard that will most likely have EFI will be high end server > boards. If you really want to be sure get an Itanium board, I am 99.99% > sure that these are EFI boards, they can only be booted with EFI and you > will need an Operating System capable of running on Itanium, like > Microsoft's IA64 Server products. The thing (Itanium board) is going to > cost a small fortune. > > Other than that you should email Intel and ask them for advice and > recommendations. They do sell high end server boards that use EFI. > Another vendor that would almost certainly be able to advise you would > be HP, their high end server products would probably have something to > suit you. Other than that you can try the high end motherboard > manufacturers like Tyan or Supermicro, they may be able to offer > something that would fit your budget and needs. And when I say "budget" > don't expect "budget" priced boards, even the cheapest of these boards > will be pricey! > > As I said earlier, you will need good vendor support to properly select > and use these boards. These are not the kind of products where you can > rely on some guy in a call centre half way around the world to help you > with when things don't work, the problems you are likely to run in will > not be on their scripted answer sheets! You will need to have a close > working relationship with reliable partners for your project to be > successful, you will need to work with support engineers and sales staff > at a higher level than the ones you get when you dial published sales > and support phone numbers. > > John |
|
In article <ef7HuNUtHHA.736[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Well, it looks like I stuck both feet in my mouth at the same
> time here... I will now try to pull them out, one at a time!
> It appears that almost any run of the mill
> Intel board is EFI capable
- - - and - - -
> However, having an EFI capable board and actually using
> it is another matter.
Join the club, I stick my feet in my mouth so often that I am walking
around on my hands with my butt dragging the ground.
(photo to be posted later)
> Why do you *absolutely* need this?
Gadd, wish you had not asked that. My answer will get me banned from
this NG permanently, if I am any judge of human nature.
Oh well, it was short and sweet here.
FWIW, already I have been banned from Mac NGs, because they are totally
against any mention of Windows operating systems there.
I made the mistake of letting slip that I was running Vista Ultimate on
my MacBook Pro hardware, and was very happy about how Vista ran on my
Mac. Especially happy running my $900 Dragon Pro software, because
there is nothing close to it in Mac software.
All hell broke loose in that Mac NG, I was damn near tarred and
feathered.
Anyhow, to answer your question directly, I _think_ I need EFI
capability for a complex reason.
Warning, Long Winded Reason coming up, Do Not Read the
Following Under Any Circumstances, It will Render You Blind.
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
1) I use a real PC as a sort of test bed, namely to run
Vista and Vista app's BEFORE I install them on my Mac.
2) Running a Vista app' called KillDisk, I found I did not
have enough smarts to get it to run. Wanted to use it
to wipe free space on my Mac's Vista partition, without
it zapping any regular Vista files. The creator of that
Vista util' specifically claims that his version 5.0 can
do that wiping task, in his website at:
<http://www.killdisk.com/>
3) Could not get KillDisk to run on real PC hardware, despite
all efforts phoning the KillDisk people. PC nerds, geeks,
in the shop that built up my ASUS PC could not get KillDisk
to work, left the PC and KillDisk DVD with them, told them
I would pay them $1,000,000,000 or a very large free meal
at any drive up window of their choice. So far no word
from them about success or failure.
I told them of my suspicions, namely that Killdisk itself might have
some sort of weird EFI compatibility problem.
Refuse to stick Vista KillDisk in my Mac until I can get it running on
real PC hardware!
Oh yeah, almost forgot, reason I want to run KillDisk is to wipe free
space in the Vista partition, so that my zip compression util' can make
a smaller compressed backup of my Vista partition.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
End of Long Winded Tirade -
Don't blame me if you go blind from reading it.
<sob> Now I am about to be banned from Windows NGs also.
Mark-
|
|
Mark Conrad wrote:
[Quoted Text] > ..., to answer your question directly, I _think_ I need EFI
> capability for a complex reason.
> 1) I use a real PC as a sort of test bed, namely to run
> Vista and Vista app's BEFORE I install them on my Mac.
Well, my direct answer to your question is that I don't know how to tell
if a new computer uses EFI or BIOS, but at the present time you will
*not* be booting an EFI computer with Vista. From earlier findings we
know that many if not most new run of the mill motherboards are EFI
ready. In the context of Microsoft newsgroups, and speaking of
Microsoft operating systems, if you are not booting Server 2003
Enterprise Itanium or Server 2003 Datacenter Itanium you are not booting
an EFI computer.
As mentioned earlier, EFI was initially developed by Intel Corporation
and published in the EFI 1.0 specification. EFI has been used as the
only supported firmware on Intel Itanium-based systems. As of early
2007, Itanium is supported by Windows Server 2003, multiple
distributions of Linux (including Debian, Red Hat and Novell SuSE,) and
HP-UX, OpenVMS, and NonStop from HP, all natively.
Intel sums up EFI and BIOS as follows:
[Quote, Intel]
The main purpose of Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is to abstract
the firmware and hardware layers from the operating system layer so that
the operating system vendors and developers do not have to battle with
the cumbersome 16-bit real-mode BIOS interfaces and constantly changing
hardware configurations. This interface became even more important when
the 64-bit CPU architecture was revealed because the legacy BIOS, which
is tightly coupled with the 32-bit CPU technology, could no longer work
for it. That is why EFI was first introduced in the 64-bit Itanium
architecture.
There has been rapid evolution of the personal computer platform since
the 1980s. These advances have included orderof-magnitude increases in
performance, ease-of-use, storage capacity, and connectivity. But there
is one element of the PC that has not changed for the past 23 years,
namely the BIOS (basic input/output system).
The task of boot firmware (whether the BIOS or firmware based on the
Framework) is to make a collection of hardware before the boot look like
a complete system after the boot.
To begin, let’s review the role of the BIOS in today’s system. The BIOS
is stored in some nonvolatile storage on the platform and commences
execution upon restart of the system. The BIOS is responsible for the
initialization of the system. This is typically referred to as power-on
self test (POST).
The POST for BIOS is typically written in some monolithic, statically
linked 16-bit, real-mode assembly language and relegated to a small
region of code space for execution. The assembly language construction
and lack of consistent system services, such as a modern memory manager,
coupled with the restricted execution space, impedes algorithm and
feature development.
Beyond POST, there is the operating system (OS) invocation and ability
to provide services to the OS. Herein, the operating system services
are provided by 16-bit software interrupts. These software interrupts
include Interrupt 13h for access to the Disk, Interrupt 10h for access
to the Video, and Interrupt 16h for access to the Keyboard. Operating
system loads rely on the existence of these services. The limitations
of these BIOS services include difficulty in extending new services,
limited parameter passing through registers, and restrictions of
real-mode. The Extensible Firmware Interface provides an opportunity to
have a common operating system loader across different platform
architectures, such as IA32 and Intel® Itanium® processor-based
platforms. Today’s legacy OS loader is relegated to the IA32 PC world.
[end Intel quote]
The Unified EFI committee is the industry group that is now responsible
for developing, managing and promoting the ongoing evolution of the UEFI
specification. One of the implementation criteria of UEFI is that it be
specific to the bits of the operating system, that is that 32-bit UEFI
be capable of booting 32-bit operating systems only and that 64-bit UEFI
be capable of booting 64-bit operating systems only. This important
implementation criteria is responsible for certain decisions made by
Microsoft with regards to UEFI and its operating systems.
[Quote, Microsoft]
The UEFI committee decided that UEFI firmware and the operating system
must match bit-wise; that is, the maximum number of address bits used by
the operating system must match the maximum number of address bits used
by firmware. For example, 32-bit UEFI implementations have the ability
to boot 32-bit operating systems, but not 64-bit operating systems.
Likewise, a 64-bit UEFI firmware implementation has the ability to
natively boot a 64-bit operating system, but does not support natively
booting a 32-bit operating system. This restriction was reached for
technical reasons related to runtime UEFI support. The UEFI
specification also allows firmware vendors to add flexible support for
booting operating systems that are designed to boot on traditional BIOS.
For this, the UEFI vendor will integrate a firmware interface layer
that performs the compatibility functionality while presenting the
BIOS-type interface to an operating system that expects BIOS-type
interfaces to boot.
Thus, any UEFI implementation can be written to provide boot support for
native 32-bit, native 64-bit, and legacy BIOS-based operating systems.
However, supporting all three of these options requires a very large
firmware image which would not fit on a traditional PROM, adding to the
cost of the bill of materials (BOM). This also adds to the validation
costs for a platform, which in turn adds to the non-recoverable
engineering (NRE) cost for the system manufacturer. However, it is
practical to support both a native UEFI firmware implementation along
with the BIOS firmware interface layer.
Microsoft expects that most UEFI platforms in the near future will
choose native 64 bit support along with a BIOS compatibility module so
that these platforms can run earlier versions of Windows that support
boot only through a BIOS. Nearly all new processors in the Windows
Vista timeframe will be 64-bit capable. Microsoft would like to use the
advent of mainstream 64-bit computing as a transition point to enable a
move toward EFI boot. Although a platform vendor could choose to have
UEFI 32-bit support, this has a short life and diminishing returns. In
the near future, OEMs won't need large, multipurpose firmware images.
Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs
previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have
any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has
therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations.
Windows 2003 Server supports EFI 1.10 on Intel Itanium platforms.
Microsoft Windows Server codename "Longhorn" supports EFI 1.10 on Intel
Itanium platforms, and also introduces support for native UEFI boot on
x64 64-bit platforms. Although the initial release of Windows Vista
will not include UEFI x64 64-bit support, a subsequent Windows Vista
release will support UEFI.
[end Microsoft quote]
So there you go, at the present time unless you have an Itanium computer
you are not booting an EFI computer using any Microsoft operating
systems. If you are using a 32-bit computer you will never boot using
EFI with any Microsoft operating system. If you think you need an
Itanium computer then the following from Wikipedia will be of interest:
"As of 2007, several manufacturers offer Itanium 2 based systems,
including HP, SGI, NEC, Fujitsu, Unisys, Hitachi, and Groupe Bull. In
addition, Intel offers a chassis[20] that can be used by system
integrators to build Itanium systems. HP, the only one of the
industry's top four server manufacturers to offer Itanium-based systems
today, manufactures at least 80% of all Itanium 2 systems. HP sold 7200
systems in the first quarter of 2006.[21] The bulk of the sales are of
enterprise servers and machines for large-scale technical computing,
with an average selling price per system in excess of US $200,000. A
typical system uses eight or more Itanium processors."
Of course, the above information is in regards to Microsoft operating
systems. How other operating systems implement booting with EFI is an
other matter altogether. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI, and
Linux supports EFI.
John
Sources:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/dc/itanium/optimization/43666.htm?page=1
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/systems/it01043.pdf
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/dt05041.pdf
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/efibrief.mspx
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/servers/platforms/SR9000MK4U/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx
Windows XP 64 does not support IA64
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
>>It appears that almost any run of the mill
>>Intel board is EFI capable
>>
>>However, having an EFI capable board and actually using
>>it is another matter.
>>
>>Why do you *absolutely* need this?
>
>
> Gadd, wish you had not asked that. My answer will get me banned from
> this NG permanently, if I am any judge of human nature.
>
> Oh well, it was short and sweet here.
>
> FWIW, already I have been banned from Mac NGs, because they are totally
> against any mention of Windows operating systems there.
>
> I made the mistake of letting slip that I was running Vista Ultimate on
> my MacBook Pro hardware, and was very happy about how Vista ran on my
> Mac. Especially happy running my $900 Dragon Pro software, because
> there is nothing close to it in Mac software.
>
> All hell broke loose in that Mac NG, I was damn near tarred and
> feathered.
>
>
> Anyhow, to answer your question directly, I _think_ I need EFI
> capability for a complex reason.
>
>
> Warning, Long Winded Reason coming up, Do Not Read the
> Following Under Any Circumstances, It will Render You Blind.
> ***********************************************************
> ***********************************************************
>
> 1) I use a real PC as a sort of test bed, namely to run
> Vista and Vista app's BEFORE I install them on my Mac.
>
> 2) Running a Vista app' called KillDisk, I found I did not
> have enough smarts to get it to run. Wanted to use it
> to wipe free space on my Mac's Vista partition, without
> it zapping any regular Vista files. The creator of that
> Vista util' specifically claims that his version 5.0 can
> do that wiping task, in his website at:
>
> <http://www.killdisk.com/>
>
> 3) Could not get KillDisk to run on real PC hardware, despite
> all efforts phoning the KillDisk people. PC nerds, geeks,
> in the shop that built up my ASUS PC could not get KillDisk
> to work, left the PC and KillDisk DVD with them, told them
> I would pay them $1,000,000,000 or a very large free meal
> at any drive up window of their choice. So far no word
> from them about success or failure.
>
> I told them of my suspicions, namely that Killdisk itself might have
> some sort of weird EFI compatibility problem.
>
> Refuse to stick Vista KillDisk in my Mac until I can get it running on
> real PC hardware!
>
>
> Oh yeah, almost forgot, reason I want to run KillDisk is to wipe free
> space in the Vista partition, so that my zip compression util' can make
> a smaller compressed backup of my Vista partition.
>
> *********************************************************
> *********************************************************
> End of Long Winded Tirade -
>
> Don't blame me if you go blind from reading it.
>
>
> <sob> Now I am about to be banned from Windows NGs also.
>
> Mark-
|
|
In article <OnCm3IOuHHA.3476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > > ..., to answer your question directly, I _think_ I need EFI
> > capability for a complex reason.
> > 1) I use a real PC as a sort of test bed, namely to run
> > Vista and Vista app's BEFORE I install them on my Mac.
>
>
> Well, my direct answer to your question is that I don't know how to tell
> if a new computer uses EFI or BIOS, but at the present time you will
> *not* be booting an EFI computer with Vista.
Wow! - thanks very much for that detailed post.
Heh, I did not know such pragmatic politics was involved with EFI.
Looks like I will have to give up my plan of using real PC hardware as a
preliminary testbed for applications that I intend to place on a Mac.
No big deal, I will merely plop the app's *directly* into my Mac, then
stand by with a fire extinguisher in case the Mac blows up.<g>
Generally just low-level utilities that work at the hardware level do
not work, but everything else seems to work okay.
Apparently Apple is one of the few who are combining 32 bit CPUs inside
battery powered computers along with EFI.
Lots of big desktop computers use EFI with 64 bit CPUs of course.
Thanks again for that very detailed post.
Mark-
|
|
Mark Conrad wrote:
[Quoted Text] > In article <OnCm3IOuHHA.3476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, > John John <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote: > > >>>..., to answer your question directly, I _think_ I need EFI >>>capability for a complex reason. >>>1) I use a real PC as a sort of test bed, namely to run >>>Vista and Vista app's BEFORE I install them on my Mac. >> >> >>Well, my direct answer to your question is that I don't know how to tell >>if a new computer uses EFI or BIOS, but at the present time you will >>*not* be booting an EFI computer with Vista. > > > Wow! - thanks very much for that detailed post. > > > > Heh, I did not know such pragmatic politics was involved with EFI. > > Looks like I will have to give up my plan of using real PC hardware as a > preliminary testbed for applications that I intend to place on a Mac. > > No big deal, I will merely plop the app's *directly* into my Mac, then > stand by with a fire extinguisher in case the Mac blows up.<g> > > Generally just low-level utilities that work at the hardware level do > not work, but everything else seems to work okay. > > > Apparently Apple is one of the few who are combining 32 bit CPUs inside > battery powered computers along with EFI. > > Lots of big desktop computers use EFI with 64 bit CPUs of course. > > Thanks again for that very detailed post.
You're welcome. It won't be too long when everthing will be 64-bit and
EFI will be de facto.
John
|
|
|