Talk:UEFI
Rewriting some content
All the GDB debugging stuff for UEFI/OVMF/QEMU has been moved to its own page: Debugging UEFI applications with GDB. It was too bulky and specific to include here. Intx13 09:20, 24 November 2015 (CST)
I'm starting to remove the older content, particularly the irrelevant stuff about there being no multibooting menus and the "biased mode" section. The useful content from those sections that wasn't already incorporated elsewhere has been included. Intx13 08:52, 20 November 2015 (CST)
I'm rewriting some content in this article, hopefully clarifying the example and providing more detail for new UEFI developers. Expect there to be some redundancy as I work on it over the next few days. -Intx13 15:03, 10 November 2015 (CST)
- I saw a lot of instances of "UEFI BIOS" usage. But is it technically correct? I have read that that specific usage is confusing. I believe most of them can simply be replaced with "UEFI system" (especially "UEFI BIOSs" with "UEFI systems"). You won't find such usage in either Arch wiki or Wikipedia (as of now -- used to be there). Critiqjo 02:18, 15 November 2015 (CST)
- I think it's technically correct ("the best kind of correct") in the sense that it refers to a BIOS ROM that adheres to the UEFI specification for platform initialization and application loading. "UEFI system" makes sense in the context of the UEFI specification, where the BIOS is the system being specified, but here, it would sound like that refers to a UEFI-compatible PC. How about "UEFI firmware"? Then we could draw a distinction between "legacy firmware" and "UEFI firmware", both of which are BIOS loaded from ROMs. The term "firmware" isn't used too much on PCs though. Intx13 12:11, 19 November 2015 (CST)
- I went ahead and changed references to "UEFI BIOS" to "UEFI firmware" where it was appropriate. I left "legacy BIOS" alone. That way, "BIOS" only appears in legacy contexts, and "UEFI" is not interchanged with "BIOS" (although it would be correct to do so!) Feedback is appreciated! Intx13 12:45, 19 November 2015 (CST)
GPT
I'm thinking that GPT should probably be a completely separate page.. Brendan 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. But first, we need some content for it :) --Love4boobies 13:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)