I think every UEFI/EFI implementation will boot to "old school" boot mode when it can't find any EFI/UEFI-compliant boot-device/boot-partition. It would take too long though but at least the fallback is there.
-Darmawan On 3/9/10, Ed Swierk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just got a new nehalem box in for test yesterday. Experiences so far: >> >> 1. POST from power-on takes 45 seconds. *45 SECONDS*. Now, I had it >> said to me at SCALE7x last year from someone from Intel that all new >> BIOSes on Intel chips are really EFI underneath -- is this indicative >> of what we are to expect? If so, it's awful. It's 15 times slower than >> what we had ten years ago, and 50 times slower than what we can do >> today on coreboot. > > As far as I can tell the sole purpose of EFI is to make it easier for > hardware vendors to shovel more junk into the BIOS by removing the > hurdle of hand-coding 16-bit assembly. > > But while EFI might accelerate the trend, it's not the only villain. > Someone noticed a 9x growth in boot time on qemu recently > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-03/msg00546.html ). > Even on a virtual platform with no actual hardware to initialize, boot > time will grow unless someone is actively pushing the other way. > > Ultimately the system board vendors are responsible for the BIOS in > the boards we buy. They are the ones cutting deals with Intel and AMI > and Phoenix, and can exert the necessary leverage. But they won't, > until they see 1-second cold boot as a feature that will sell more > boards. > > --Ed > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -= Human knowledge belongs to the world =- -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
