|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
According to this presentation from WinHec 2004 (page 15), the EFI System Partition (ESP) is FAT-32: EFI And Windows "Longhorn"
And Microsoft just won the case about the FAT patents: Microsoft's file system patent upheld
So to use FAT you need to license the IP from Microsoft: Microsoft FAT license (Broken link?)
But you can do that for free if you are implementing EFI, here:
The standard doesn't say anything about other partitions than the ESP, so that doesn't rule out MacOS.
"Ideally, the EFI development model will move the concept of hardware drivers from the operating system back into the lowest level of the PC structure: the hardware itself."
Does anyone else have a problem with this sentence? I edited the article to include sections and made some minor grammatical changes. I wanted to change this sentence, but I let it stand.
The problem that I see is that it makes it sound like the author is proposing that OS-level drivers are bad and EFI-level drivers are good. That debate is probably beyond the scope of this article. If the sentence stays, it should probably be worded to sound less like an opinion.
Agree with above. Also I found it a little confusing, since the article makes clear that EFI seems to make it easier to update the 'bios' level then before.. And then comments about it being in the hardware. Some clarification would be great. 188.8.131.52
Independent Drivers and Architecture
What does that mean? I've searched for a while over there and couldnt find any info. Maybe some explanation in that lines would help me and others searching for the same? (added 15 March 2016)
How many *separate* implementations of UEFI are in use?
The section on implementations could maybe benefit from the following information, if anybody has them: As of 2019, is there more than one completely separate implementations of the UEFI specification in practical use (i.e. shipped in commercial, mass produced products)? Or do all the versions in practical use derive or branch off from a single common code base? If you know this (I don't as I came here to find out), please add the information. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)