Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #62356 > unrolled thread

Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-11-23 13:18 +1000
    Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-11-23 15:55 +1100
    Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-11-23 23:43 +1100
      Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-11-24 01:04 +1100
        Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-11-24 15:34 +1100
      Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-11-24 14:26 +1000
        Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear conrrrod@gmail.com - 2017-11-24 16:38 -0800
    Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-11-23 20:20 +0000
      Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-11-24 15:38 +1100
        Re: Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-11-24 15:55 +1000

#62356 — Last vestiges of PC BIOS to disappear

By 2020

https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#62357

"keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message 
news:f7mt0nFlufsU1@mid.individual.net...
> By 2020
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2

Bet it doesn’t, whatever Intel wants to see. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62362

On 23/11/2017 2:18 PM, keithr0 wrote:
> By 2020
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2

Long overdue. My current beast, a 2008 vintage, has UEFI.

-- 

Xeno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62365

On 23/11/2017 11:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 2:18 PM, keithr0 wrote:
>> By 2020
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2
>
> Long overdue. My current beast, a 2008 vintage, has UEFI.
>

end of an era then :(

-- 
Australians have spoken, love is
love, so I'm marrying my cat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62389

On 24/11/2017 1:04 AM, felix wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 11:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 2:18 PM, keithr0 wrote:
>>> By 2020
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2
>>
>> Long overdue. My current beast, a 2008 vintage, has UEFI.
>>
> 
> end of an era then :(
> 
That BIOS was a dinosaur and it helped keep Microsoft from advancing 
forward way back when it was necessary and they lagged in an attempt to 
retain backward compatibility. Intel saw the need and advanced apace.


-- 

Xeno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62386

On 11/23/2017 10:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 2:18 PM, keithr0 wrote:
>> By 2020
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2
> 
> Long overdue. My current beast, a 2008 vintage, has UEFI.
> 
Did you actually read the article or are you shooting from the hip? 
AFAIK nobody has made an actual PC BIOS motherboard in years. What is 
being taken away is the compatibility mode of UEFI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62398

On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:26:49 PM UTC+8, keithr0 wrote:
> > 
> Did you actually read the article or are you shooting from the hip? 
> AFAIK nobody has made an actual PC BIOS motherboard in years. What is 
> being taken away is the compatibility mode of UEFI.

Umm, checkout "industrial PC mainboards". Advantech still sells dinosaur
stuff (LGA 1156, runs Windows XP and AMI BIOS)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62371

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> By 2020
> 
> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2

Shame that they couldn't find an equal acronym. Even BIOSAdvanced
or BIOSA would have at least been more memorable than UEFI, though
getting it back down to two syllables would have been even better.

It's a shame that they're going to end the excellent run of
backwards compatibility that x86(_64) has had, but it is hard
to think of a good argument why they should keep spending money
on writing software to make it so.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62390

On 24/11/2017 7:20 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>> By 2020
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2
> 
> Shame that they couldn't find an equal acronym. Even BIOSAdvanced
> or BIOSA would have at least been more memorable than UEFI, though
> getting it back down to two syllables would have been even better.
> 
> It's a shame that they're going to end the excellent run of
> backwards compatibility that x86(_64) has had, but it is hard
> to think of a good argument why they should keep spending money
> on writing software to make it so.
> 
That's pretty much it. Still want to run old software? Run a virtual 
machine.

-- 

Xeno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62392

On 11/24/2017 2:38 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 7:20 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
>>> By 2020
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/yad4bcj2
>>
>> Shame that they couldn't find an equal acronym. Even BIOSAdvanced
>> or BIOSA would have at least been more memorable than UEFI, though
>> getting it back down to two syllables would have been even better.
>>
>> It's a shame that they're going to end the excellent run of
>> backwards compatibility that x86(_64) has had, but it is hard
>> to think of a good argument why they should keep spending money
>> on writing software to make it so.
>>
> That's pretty much it. Still want to run old software? Run a virtual 
> machine.
> 
It's not the software it's old hardware that needs it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web