Talk:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)
The `bcdedit` command causes Windows to chainload the named .efi loader, no new NVRAM entries are made. Head on a Stick (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


I think the warning is outdated by now. Maybe we can adjust it with something like:

[..]old (or first generation) UEFI-Mainbords might have[..]

—This unsigned comment is by Fire (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2020‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I'm been meaning to change that warning for a while now. IMHO the first part until the comma can be removed entirely. For the rest, the thought should be that new UEFI implementation are generally less buggy than old ones, the implementations on desktops are usually more feature complete and have less issues than those on laptops, and that despite everything previously stated it's still a vendor supplied firmware and expecting it to not be crap is wishful thinking. -- nl6720 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed the empty "forward-looking" part. The rest of the warning looks fine to me. It already explicitly mentions "early implementations". -- Alad (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What does "do a search relating to your particular motherboard model before proceeding" even mean? If you don't find anything, it does not mean that the firmware is not crap. And if you find something, it may be false or outdated. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It turned out slightly different than thought at first, but the I changed the warning and the intro to not give the impression that UEFI is something new or avoidable. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)