4 ms·
And then spend then next 400,000,000 cycles progressively switching from 40 year old 8086 real mode to the present, reading some newer firmware configuration ta
by beagle3 7y ago
And then spend then next 400,000,000 cycles progressively switching from 40 year old 8086 real mode to the present, reading some newer firmware configuration tables from that same BIOS (which are often buggy), compensating for those bugs, etc.
That's still less than a quarter of a second, granted. But the complexity goes to the OS instead of a reasonable separation of concerns.
Granted, the mess that [U]EFI is, it might still be the better option. But the old BIOS is only "good" because of the crazy (sunk and continuing) cost to effectively implement "good new bios" within the operating systems.
- notyourday 7y ago> That's still less than a quarter of a second, granted. But the complexity goes to the OS instead of a reasonable separation of concerns. So? The OS already does it.
- drudru11 7y agoI have found the [U]EFI mess to be really unbearable. It is too hard to debug. I mean, they learned nothing from the workstation or minicomputer era wrt. boot diagnostics.
- userbinator 7y agoBIOSes have been executing mostly in "unreal"/flat-real mode since at least the 486 days, and I recall one of the later ones switching into that mode only a dozen instructions after FFFF:FFF0. EFI is ridiculous complexity, more than that of early OSs, mostly just to do things which the OS would again do when it boots up.