Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Questionable edits: re)
(re)
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== >=512 MiB for the UEFISYS partition? ==
+
== bcdedit ==
  
I was never told to make it 512 MiB or more, and right now it's 47.86 MiB and it works fine. Are there any other particular reasons for making it that relatively big? [[User:SansNumbers|///]] ([[User talk:SansNumbers|t]]) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
+
I do not think that the command
  
Microsoft Documentation mentions the minimum partition size for FAT32 to be 512 MiB. UEFI Spec. in some places mentions just FAT but in some places specifically mentions FAT32. Combining both the cases, having a >=512 MiB FAT32 (not FAT16/FAT12) partition UEFISYS is the best bet for all fimrwares out there, some of which may not support <512 MiB and/or FAT16 partition. -- [[User:The.ridikulus.rat|Keshav P R]] ([[User talk:The.ridikulus.rat|talk]]) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
+
# bcdedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\path\to\app.efi
  
==Questionable edits==
+
"tell the Windows boot loader to run a different UEFI application" as mentioned in the wiki (in the "Windows changes boot order" section)
 +
I think it add an entry in the UEFI firmware. But that can be as well accomplished under Linux with efibootmgr command. If the UEFI is weird (by refusing to boot something other than Windows for example); I do not think it will be of any help. I am not a Windows specialist and so I do not take the responsibility to edit this section, but someone more knowledgeable than me should double check it.
  
Buhman has totally changed the steps to create a bootable UEFI USB.  Persaonlly, I find the new steps to be much more comples than before, and to a pretty terrible job helping the user understand what is actually being achieved.  Buhman's first edit says that he "excommunicated the 7z crap" or something like that.  Wouldn't it be better to leave a perfectly usable option and make note of alternate methods rather than "excommunicating" what is there?  I vote that these instructions should be reverted, or at the very least (heavily) commented.  Thoughts anyone? -- [[User:WonderWoofy|Curtis]] ([[User talk:WonderWoofy|talk]]) 20:00, 16 Dec 2012 (UTC)
+
{{unsigned|13:00, 20 September 2016‎|Olive}}
  
:I'm sorry I don't really have the time to revise those edits now, but the policy on the ArchWiki is to always let the end user choose which method to use in order to do something, never hiding anything, so if you really feel that the previous procedure was better, please add it back in a separate section. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 12:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
+
:From my reading, it seems that this command should trick windows into running a different EFI application instead of its own boot manager (bootmgfw.efi). I don't have the means to test it right now, but given that there are plenty of other recommendations in the article, I don't think it hurts to keep this command around. We'll just have to wait until someone gives it a test. [[User:Silverhammermba|Silverhammermba]] ([[User talk:Silverhammermba|talk]]) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:35, 20 September 2016

bcdedit

I do not think that the command

# bcdedit /set {bootmgr} path \EFI\path\to\app.efi

"tell the Windows boot loader to run a different UEFI application" as mentioned in the wiki (in the "Windows changes boot order" section) I think it add an entry in the UEFI firmware. But that can be as well accomplished under Linux with efibootmgr command. If the UEFI is weird (by refusing to boot something other than Windows for example); I do not think it will be of any help. I am not a Windows specialist and so I do not take the responsibility to edit this section, but someone more knowledgeable than me should double check it.

—This unsigned comment is by Olive (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

From my reading, it seems that this command should trick windows into running a different EFI application instead of its own boot manager (bootmgfw.efi). I don't have the means to test it right now, but given that there are plenty of other recommendations in the article, I don't think it hurts to keep this command around. We'll just have to wait until someone gives it a test. Silverhammermba (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)