When will UEFI equiped computers actually arrive?

My Google-foo has failed me. I keep reading about UEFI equipped computers arriving in 2011 but I don’t find any real information on it. UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) replaces the old BIOS chips and is supposed to make computers boot up in seconds. I’d like to think that OS software will eventually make it to chip form but I’m not holding my breath hoping anybody is working on it.

I may need to replace my coal-fired laptop due to continued mechanical problems and don’t want to get leap-frogged the day after I buy a replacement.

Anybody out there heard a solid date it will hit the market?

probably once 32-bit Windows is gone.

Yeah, if I remember right, it was 2000 or 2001, but that was only for Itaniums. I think around 2002 was when the first x86 EFI systems were available, and around 2003 when they were first mass-produced for consumer use.

The problem at the time was that Windows 2000/XP/2003 couldn’t boot from EFI. Gateway and some other companies got around that by loading BIOS under EFI, but that obviously didn’t make booting any faster. So, for a long time, EFI was really only useful for linux. (And, later, for Mac OS X–Apple has been using EFI since they first made the switch to Intel, although IIRC the developer transition systems loaded PPC-style OpenBoot on top of EFI.)

Since Vista SP1 and 2008, 64-bit Windows has been EFI-compatible, but 32-bit Windows still isn’t, and probably never will be.

So, there’s your answer: Once 32-bit Windows goes away (or only runs under virtualization) for most of the consumer market, BIOS can finally go away.

Actually, there’s one more tangle in there. A lot of your hardware has boot-time firmware that needs to run before the system can start up (assuming you want to, say, load an OS from your hard drive, or display a boot screen on your monitor), and that all has to be EFI-compatible as well.

Meanwhile, there’s no guarantee that (U)EFI will make booting that much faster; at best, it just makes it possible. An iMac does boot faster than an equivalent PC, but how much of this is EFI vs. BIOS, how much is Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7, and how much is specifically-chosen hardware vs. whatever the clone-makers might possibly want to bundle, I don’t know. And the iMac still doesn’t come up in anything near 3 seconds. And if you take a RAID device that spends 5 seconds surveying drives on bootup, it adds the same 5 seconds on a Mac Pro as on a Dell PowerEdge.

This has already happened, 30+ years ago in fact. The Apple II could just be powered up without any external media connected and it would boot just fine and dump you into the Basic interpreter, and you could access the Monitor. I’d count that as an OS of some type, albeit very primitive. (though you couldn’t easily access floppy disks without booting from disk and loading a Disk Operating System(DOS)). The original Macintosh had most of the original Macintosh System Software (I suppose you could call it Mac OS 1) in ROM, though it did load some of it from floppy.

I’m pretty sure you could boot an old-school 8-bit Atari computer without a boot disk.

How can computer manufacturers not be aware of the desire for modern computers booting up instantly? It’s the twenty first fricking century. My Nikon camera is running the second I turn it on.

Who boots their machine?
I have a machine running OS X “Tiger” that hasn’t been powered off in nearly 4 years. All my other machines go many months between reboots (and then only because of system updates). The rest of their downtime they spend sleeping.

They’re aware of that desire. They’re also aware of your desire for security fixes, feature updates, drivers for new hardware, etc. And they’re also aware of your desire to upgrade your computer to the next OS version for $99 instead of throwing it out and replacing it. (Not to mention their desire to sell you that $99 upgrade.)

Of course you can burn an OS (or just certain routines) into ROM and just replace bits as needed off disk. Classic Macs, and many other systems of the time, did this. But in the end, it isn’t worth it. I remember I once traced my Mac IIsi to see how many of the system calls that were made went to ROM routines and how many to disk-loaded, and it was close to half and half. Once I upgraded to System 7, it was more like 1%/99%. So, people have mostly abandoned this strategy.

Besides, loading stuff up from disk isn’t really the delay. Waking a computer from hibernation requires a lot more disk loading than booting, but it takes 1/10th the time. A big chunk of time is spent surveying your hardware to figure out what needs to be loaded (the fact that this is typically done twice–once by BIOS or EFI, once by the OS itself–makes it even worse), and another big chunk is spent actually running the drivers to get them set up.

And to some extent, this is necessary. On a computer, unlike a camera, you can add/remove/replace almost anything between shutting down and powering up, and you still expect the computer to boot up next time without having to go through a complicated manual configuration procedure.

There are all kinds of tricks to get around this. For example, they can assume you’ve got the same hardware you did when you shut down, unless there’s some unexpected error, and wait until the OS is up and running to start looking for new or changed hardware. Some bits can’t be handled this way (usually because the firmware insists on running every time, or because an unexpected error would be catastrophic and unrecoverable), but they can (and do) still shave seconds off boot time this way.

Things are getting better–computers boot faster than they used to, and (as beowulff points out) they usually don’t have to do so as often. And EFI gives the OS manufacturers more tricks to improve things, so things will continue getting better. But computers will never cold-boot as fast as cameras.

While I can’t remember the last time I rebooted my MacBook Pro, my first-gen MacBook sometimes has a video glitch after recovering from sleep that requires a reboot to fix. (And I just had to reboot my iPhone earlier today, because some upgrade that was only supposed to require a respring ended up getting into an endless respring cycle.)

Likewise, there’s a reason I remember the SysRq-SUB sequence by heart for linux; it isn’t needed that often, but it does come up occasionally.

And most people run Windows. My last ThinkPad had about a 50/50 chance of needing to be power-cycled after it was undocked and redocked, and I can’t remember the last Windows computer I had that went a year between reboots.

Well, I’m running Windows 7 and I reboot once a month when Patch Tuesday rolls around.

Eliminating that 3 minutes a month isn’t high on my list of things in the world that need fixing.

Could the OS be put on a chip in a USB2 port device (like this) to speed things up?

Well, USB isn’t known for being super-fast. Putting the OS on a SATA flash drive (or just a 10000rpm hard drive instead of a 5400) might help a little more.

But again, as I said, the disk loading time isn’t really the issue. Waking from hibernation requires loading up the entire saved memory state, which is typically around 4GB, and it only takes a few seconds. So, you’re trying to optimize the wrong part of the process.

Of course optimizing the wrong part of the process is what computer programmers do for a living–if 1.0 isn’t slow and buggy, how are we going to get paid to make version 2.0? :slight_smile: