EFI vs Legacy BIOS

[dos2unix]

From coPilot.

Using /boot/efi over /biosboot in Linux has several advantages, primarily due to the differences between UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) and BIOS (Basic Input/Output System):

1. Faster Boot Times: UEFI systems typically boot faster than BIOS-based systems. This is because UEFI has more optimized code and can initialize hardware more efficiently
   
   
2. Support for Larger Storage Devices: UEFI supports larger storage devices (over 2 TB) and more partitions on a disk compared to BIOS
   
   
3. Modern Interface: UEFI provides a more modern and flexible interface, including support for graphical menus and mouse input, which is not available in BIOS
   
   
4. Enhanced Security Features: UEFI includes features like Secure Boot, which helps protect the system from malware and unauthorized software during the boot process
   
   
5. Compatibility with GPT: UEFI works well with the GUID Partition Table (GPT), which is more robust and flexible than the Master Boot Record (MBR) used by BIOS
   

Overall, using /boot/efi with UEFI offers better performance, security, and flexibility compared to the traditional /biosboot with BIOS.
===============================================

I think sometimes there may be misconceptions about EFI.
On one hand it's true that not all computers support EFI. But in reality, every computer that is less than 18 or 19 years old supports it.
On the other hand, some of my newer computers don't support legacy BIOS. I think this is becoming more of a trend recently.
For some reason, some people tie EFI together with secure boot, fast-boot and TPM. But they are not the same thing.
I do have some computers that I disable secure boot, and fast-boot on. I do have some computers that do not support TPM even though they support EFI.

 

[dos2unix]

Again... from coPilot.

Fast Boot (or Fast Startup) is a feature designed to speed up the boot process of your computer. It combines elements of a cold shutdown and hibernation to achieve quicker startup times. Here's how it works:

1. Hybrid Shutdown: When you shut down your computer with Fast Boot enabled, it logs off all users and then hibernates the system. This means it saves the system state to a file on the hard drive, but doesn't completely turn off the hardware
   
   
2. Quick Startup: When you power on the computer, it reads the saved system state from the hibernation file and quickly restores the system to its previous state, bypassing the full initialization process
   

This method significantly reduces the time it takes to boot up your computer compared to a traditional cold boot, where the system has to initialize all hardware and load the operating system from scratch.
=================================================================

The name of "fast-boot" is a little misleading in some cases. It doesn't make your computer boot up any faster from a cold start.
It simply lets your computer "go to sleep" (hibernate) and then "wake up" faster than if you had to start from a cold boot.
I have fast-boot disabled on most of my computers.

 

[dos2unix]

This is also from coPilot. I know most of this stuff. I'm just too lazy to type it all out this morning.

TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module. It's a dedicated microcontroller designed to secure hardware through integrated cryptographic keys. TPM chips are used to enhance the security of devices by providing hardware-based, security-related functions. They can store cryptographic keys, passwords, and certificates, and are often used for secure boot processes, disk encryption, and other security features.

TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module. It's a dedicated microcontroller designed to secure hardware through integrated cryptographic keys. TPM chips are used to enhance the security of devices by providing hardware-based, security-related functions. They can store cryptographic keys, passwords, and certificates, and are often used for secure boot processes, disk encryption, and other security features.

Differences between TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0:​

1. Cryptographic Algorithms:
   
   • TPM 1.2: Supports RSA 1024 and RSA 2048 for asymmetric encryption, and SHA-1 for hashing.
   • TPM 2.0: Supports a wider range of algorithms, including RSA 2048, ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography), SHA-1, and SHA-256
     
2. Authorization Hierarchies:
   
   • TPM 1.2: Uses a single "owner" authorization model.
   • TPM 2.0: Introduces multiple hierarchies for different functions, such as Endorsement, Storage, and Platform Hierarchies, each with its own authorization
     
3. Flexibility and Compatibility:
   
   • TPM 1.2: Has a one-size-fits-all specification.
   • TPM 2.0: Offers platform-specific specifications, making it more flexible and adaptable to different types of devices
     
4. Security Features:
   
   • TPM 2.0: Provides enhanced security features and better support for modern cryptographic algorithms, making it more secure and future-proof
     
5. Supported Applications:
   
   • TPM 1.2: Compatible with older systems and applications.
   • TPM 2.0: Required for newer operating systems like Windows 11 and supports more advanced security features
     

Overall, TPM 2.0 offers improved security, flexibility, and compatibility compared to TPM 1.2.
=================================================================

Even fewer computers support TPM than EFI and secure-boot. TPM is somewhat related to secure boot, but they aren't exactly the same thing. I do disable TPM on some of my computers.

 

[dos2unix]

Commentary - as I have stated in other threads. I am a proponent of EFI. Not because it's safer per se. (I think it probably is, but that's not why I endorse it). I tend to look at it this way.

Let's say I have computer with a 64-bit CPU. But I only run 32-bit OS's on it. I know it works, I know it's compatible with what I'm doing. Why change it if you don't have to?

Let's say I have a computer with both a spindle/platter type SATA hard drive, and an m.2/ssd type hard drive. (I do have such a computer actually). But I don't want to install my OS on the ssd drive because, well it works just fine on my old hard drive.

...now...

Let's say I have a computer that supports both Legacy BIOS and EFI. (Most of my computers would be in this category).
But I don't want to run it in EFI mode, because it works fine in legacy BIOS mode.

It's true, all of the old things and old ways still work. But old hardware doesn't last forever and eventually you'll have to upgrade.
New hard drives are "MUCH MUCH" faster. If you haven't used a SSD drive, it's the best upgrade you can do for your computer.

64-bit computing is "MUCH MUCH" faster that 32-bit computing. Why would you "not" use it?

EFI isn't MUCH MUCH" faster than legacy BIOS, but it is faster. It is ALWAYS faster in every case. It supports larger hard drives than legacy BIOS. It supports pre-loading most kernel modules for faster boot ups, and yes it can be more secure as well.
Why would I wait for kernel to completely load before any drivers get installed if I don't have to? UEFI is easier to use than Legacy BIOS because I can use a mouse and click on things to change options. Legacy BIOS is keyboard only. You might say, well my computer has a GUI BIOS and I'm running in Legacy BIOS mode. No, you're not. You might be running your OS in Legacy BIOS mode, but you are not using a true BIOS if you're using a mouse. You're using UEFI.
So then if you're already using the biggest part of it, why not use all of it?

If your computer supports EFI, why would you "NOT" use it? "Because I've heard if can cause issues", that was the case a decade ago. Linux has changed. Boot loaders and shim have changed. I have fifteen computers at my house. EFI has never caused any problems on any of them. I have installed Linux on literally hundreds (maybe over a thousand?) computers. There was a brief period for a few years when EFI first came out that it sometimes caused some problems. But it hasn't caused any problems for me at all in the last 15 years or so.

You paid extra for all that newer technology. Why not take advantage of it? Secure boot and TPM can still cause problems, even fast boot can sometimes cause problems. ACPI can sometimes cause problems. Usually a BIOS update will fix most of these, but if it doesn't, fine turn those things off. But you can still leave EFI turned on.

 

[dos2unix]

This post doesn't have much to do with EFI, not really.. but maybe it will help explain where I'm coming from here.

I know we have plenty of people running older hardware on here. I know not everyone can afford new computers. There were times in my life I went through some financial difficulties. But things have been looking up for me that last couple of decades.

I love it when people ask for "Low resource" distros. People frequently give the specs for their computers, and they only have 10GB hard drive, or only have 1 o2 2GB of RAM. Some people still run 32bit computers. I think that's great, and I'm glad you can still run many versions of Linux on those computers.

But then there are the troublemakers like me. My two main Linux computers I use (I'm typing this on one of them) are pretty beefy. One has 16 cores, the other has 24 cores. One has 32GB or RAM, the other has 64GB of RAM. Both have over 4TB of storage. I'm not interested in "low resource" distro's that much. I'm a power user. Both have fairly beefy video cards in them. Let me get the biggest baddest most resource hungry distro there is!! I have all this horsepower, I might as well use it. What are you saving all that CPU and RAM for? A rainy day? Get out there and use that bad boy. Browse the web with 100 tabs open. Compile code. Run multiple VMs. Edit multiple audio tracks. Render 3-D objects. Do what you do.

If you have a lower end computer, I'm glad you can run Linux on it. But for those who have high resource computers... light that Rocketship up!

 

[MikeWalsh]

@dos2unix :-

Hm. I never really quite understood point #2 in your first post:-

Support for Larger Storage Devices: UEFI supports larger storage devices (over 2 TB) and more partitions on a disk compared to BIOS

The ancient Compaq Presario desktop I used to run - from 2005 - ran for years with a USB 3.0 external 3TB HDD. That machine was BIOS, all the way.....the MSI 'custom' mobo was even older (2003) I believe.

But it saw every byte of that 3TB HDD. Mind you, to be fair, I was running it via a PCI-e x4 USB 3.0 adapter card (the Presario never came with USB 3.0, only USB 2.0). Hell, it still ran with IDE/PATA storage drives, though it DID support the first-gen SATA ports.....had a pair of 'em on the mobo. I used one when I had to replace the DVD/RW multi-drive, since SATA was all that was then available.

I often wondered if there was summat in the adapter card's controller chip that was performing some of the early EFI functions. I ran an install of ZorinOS on that drive for years, though I did have to plug it into a USB 2.0 socket to get it to boot! It simply didn't want to know if I plugged it into one of the 4 USB 3.0 ports on the adapter.....

(shrug...)


Mike.

 

[dos2unix]

But it saw every byte of that 3TB HDD. Mind you,

I have wondered what "supported" means in some cases. I have had the same experience with other servers.
You can use gpt disks with Legacy BIOS. If your computer has two hard drives try this. In fact you can even do it with a USB thumb drive. Create a new GPT partition table on your drive, make a new partition and format it. Mount it on your Legacy BIOS computer. It works. So then, why does it say "not supported". My understanding is that it doesn't support "booting" from a GPT disk drive. So then I tried that too, with mixed results. Some computers support it, some computers don't. But I know EFI looks for certain efi directories. Some then the question is... is the hard drive partition table, or the linux distro that is at fault here?

EFI system partition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Default UEFI/GPT Hard Drive Partition Layout Description for Windows 10 and 11

This tutorial will explain each partition of the default partition layout created when you clean install Windows 10 or Windows 11 on a blank hard disk drive (HDD) or solid-state drives (SSD). When you clean install Windows 10/11 to a blank unallocated disk with UEFI, the disk is formatted using...

www.elevenforum.com

The mount point for the EFI system partition varies depending on the bootloader used. Older bootloaders such as GRUB 2 and lilo/elilo default to /boot/efi. Alternatively, systemd-boot prefers either /efi or /boot over /boot/efi due to potential complications with nested autofs mounts. Regardless of the mount point path, its contents are accessible after Linux is booted

But not all Linux distros follow these standards.

 

[dos2unix]

This is also from coPilot.

1. Legacy BIOS Support:
   
   • Windows 1.0 to Windows XP: These versions were designed to work with legacy BIOS, which was the standard firmware interface for PCs at the time.
   • Windows Vista: Initially supported legacy BIOS, but with Service Pack 1 (SP1), it introduced support for UEFI
     
2. UEFI Support:
   
   • Windows Vista SP1: The first version to support UEFI, but it was primarily for 64-bit systems
     
     
   • Windows 7: Continued to support both legacy BIOS and UEFI, but UEFI support was more refined
     
     
   • Windows 8 and later: Fully embraced UEFI, with many systems shipping with UEFI as the default firmware interface
     

Now of course I know this isn't a MS Windows website, but MickySoft dictates what computers makers manufacture.
For a long time computers were legacy BIOS only. Then they shifted to support both modes BIOS and EFI. But lately I have seen a shift of some manufacturers doing away with Legacy BIOs.

 

[wizardfromoz]

Just a tip for Dell users.

TPM may be referred to as PTT (Platform Trust Technology) in your BIOS Setup. It is likely under Advanced Options.

Cheers

Wizard

 

[wizardfromoz]

Took a walk down Memory Lane this morning, having re-read this thread.

Jerry Bezencon, the Developer of Linux Lite, posted the following at their forums, back in 2018

https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=5149

He had sworn black and blue that he would not ever embrace UEFI. That would have been on Linux Lite v4.4 at the time.

Fast forward two years, and with the release of Linux Lite 5.0, the release announcement said, in part (my highlighting in italics)

erry Bezencon has announced the release of Linux Lite 5.0, a lightweight desktop distribution based on Ubuntu. The project's latest release features the Xfce desktop and is based on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS. The new version improves UEFI support and swaps out the old firewall utility for FireWallD. The project's release announcement offers further information: "Linux Lite 5.0 final, code name 'Emerald', is now available for download and installation. This is the most feature-rich, complete Linux Lite release to-date. UEFI is now supported out of the box. It is recommended that you disable Secure Boot even though it will work, it's just a huge hassle to have it enabled. See the new inbuilt Help Manual for ways to do this on the Start page.

So there you go

I have had LL in my stable since v3.8 in 2017/2018, and they are now up to v7.2.

Wiz

 

[Brickwizard]

Computers have become the Hot rods from the 1960's, with the same connotations,
Ultimately the max speed you can work on a computer,has nothing to do with CPU's Ram' Etc, so what is the constraints of your speed? Its down to the speed of your brain and the dexterity of your fingers.

 

[SquidHM3]

Funny - I used to think "yeah, I've never had an SSD, so no biggie. I don't know what I'm 'missing', and I'm ok with that."
Then I built my current rig, 4.5 years ago (see my sig for specs). I was blown away by how fast Windows booted up. That machine no longer has Windows on it - when M$ installed CoPilot on my Win10 install, I said, "enough" and threw Endeavour on it. Haven't looked back since. The trip down memory lane was nice though, dos2unix That one part about, "Oh, my OS works fine on my HDD"... that was me all the way just 5 years ago.

 

[Fanboi]

Funny - I used to think "yeah, I've never had an SSD, so no biggie. I don't know what I'm 'missing', and I'm ok with that."
Then I built my current rig, 4.5 years ago (see my sig for specs). I was blown away by how fast Windows booted up. That machine no longer has Windows on it - when M$ installed CoPilot on my Win10 install, I said, "enough" and threw Endeavour on it. Haven't looked back since. The trip down memory lane was nice though, dos2unix That one part about, "Oh, my OS works fine on my HDD"... that was me all the way just 5 years ago.

When I upgraded my Inspiron's (3558 model) 500GB SATA HDD to my old SATA SSD (I now use an NVMe M.2 in my PC), I can honestly say it must have doubled if not more in speed. I upped the RAM, too, but that was to stop it swapping and sometimes freezing temporarily (modern day apps just don't like to wait for swap on an HDD). Anyway, she's now running happily on 8GB RAM and the loss in storage from 500GB to 128GB didn't matter since I only use the old gal for work and when we have "planned blackouts".

---

UEFI is an interesting topic because I don't think anyone would prefer BIOS feature-wise. However, I do think motherboard OEMs have taken things to the extreme. Folks like me don't want all these menus and graphical widgets etc. We want words because words make sense. Sadly, OEMs all want to make things "For Gamers!!!", if only aesthetically. So you wind up totally lost. What I could've done with a keyboard in a minute (because things were forced to be intuitive), can take 10 with the latest firmware on a new board I'm not used to. So I think things get abused.

On the topic of using resources, I upgrade what needs to be as I need it. And when it comes to software, I choose functionality. So while I can easily run Gnome 3 on my PC, I choose XFCE because it's functional and easy to customise and navigate. Setting it up to look pretty and modern is minorly tedious if you don't already have a GTK theme, an icon pack, and WM theme. Luckily I do and have been content with everything but icons -- why does Linux not have brilliant (not good, brilliant) icon packs? /rant. I've tried over the years to embrace Gnome 3 and just can't. People who can, more power to them because I've seen YT videos showing how it can benefit workflow... just not mine. If I did ever migrate, it'd be KDE Pasma... but I'll likely stay put.
And that brings me to lightweight by choice not necessity. Some folks, despite their power (myself included) try to keep our resource usage down simply so that we can enjoy the stuff that does heavy lifting. Emulating PS2 is very tough on a technical level. Before the PCSX2 team did some major overhauls and the Linux version (upstream Appimage) was fixed, it was almost impossible to run smoothly on Linux. In that scenario, every little bit counted. At the time I was using an AppImage that someone from the Manjaro community put together because Debian's current version was unusable (when the AppImage outperforms the installed package, something is really sour). I actually installed Fluxbox and switched sessions just to use it. So a lightweight environment does still help you enjoy more performance, even these days.
I think it's also worth noting that some of us consider minimalism an art. I went through a phase of that as that was what fueled first interest in Linux. And if it wasn't for that, I'd never have become a Linux user, I'd have been one of those people who runs the cracked XP SP2 on my older machines as a "lightweight OS".

 

[SquidHM3]

When I upgraded my Inspiron's (3558 model) 500GB SATA HDD to my old SATA SSD (I now use an NVMe M.2 in my PC), I can honestly say it must have doubled if not more in speed. I upped the RAM, too, but that was to stop it swapping and sometimes freezing temporarily (modern day apps just don't like to wait for swap on an HDD). Anyway, she's now running happily on 8GB RAM and the loss in storage from 500GB to 128GB didn't matter since I only use the old gal for work and when we have "planned blackouts".

---

UEFI is an interesting topic because I don't think anyone would prefer BIOS feature-wise. However, I do think motherboard OEMs have taken things to the extreme. Folks like me don't want all these menus and graphical widgets etc. We want words because words make sense. Sadly, OEMs all want to make things "For Gamers!!!", if only aesthetically. So you wind up totally lost. What I could've done with a keyboard in a minute (because things were forced to be intuitive), can take 10 with the latest firmware on a new board I'm not used to. So I think things get abused.

On the topic of using resources, I upgrade what needs to be as I need it. And when it comes to software, I choose functionality. So while I can easily run Gnome 3 on my PC, I choose XFCE because it's functional and easy to customise and navigate. Setting it up to look pretty and modern is minorly tedious if you don't already have a GTK theme, an icon pack, and WM theme. Luckily I do and have been content with everything but icons -- why does Linux not have brilliant (not good, brilliant) icon packs? /rant. I've tried over the years to embrace Gnome 3 and just can't. People who can, more power to them because I've seen YT videos showing how it can benefit workflow... just not mine. If I did ever migrate, it'd be KDE Pasma... but I'll likely stay put.
And that brings me to lightweight by choice not necessity. Some folks, despite their power (myself included) try to keep our resource usage down simply so that we can enjoy the stuff that does heavy lifting. Emulating PS2 is very tough on a technical level. Before the PCSX2 team did some major overhauls and the Linux version (upstream Appimage) was fixed, it was almost impossible to run smoothly on Linux. In that scenario, every little bit counted. At the time I was using an AppImage that someone from the Manjaro community put together because Debian's current version was unusable (when the AppImage outperforms the installed package, something is really sour). I actually installed Fluxbox and switched sessions just to use it. So a lightweight environment does still help you enjoy more performance, even these days.
I think it's also worth noting that some of us consider minimalism an art. I went through a phase of that as that was what fueled first interest in Linux. And if it wasn't for that, I'd never have become a Linux user, I'd have been one of those people who runs the cracked XP SP2 on my older machines as a "lightweight OS".

I agree with you on many points there - I just wanted to keep my reply short-n-sweet. I actually have a 486sx-25 that still runs DOS/Win3.1! Plus an old Dell Latitude X200 (windows 2K, 640MB of RAM). I like things simple as well - (U)EFI has gotten to be just too much in many ways, and yes it can be confusing! I'm with you as well, I loathe Gnome 3 - my laptop runs Mint/Cinnamon, my main system is Endeavour with KDE Plasma.

[EDIT:] The only reason I have the beefy system downstairs is due to the fact that I worked boatloads of OT at my job [during COVID]. Averaged 55 hours a week! I dropped five figures on the box. But at least I checked something off on my "bucket list". LOL It's overkill, but I've found uses for it.

Nice to know someone out there thinks at least somewhat like I do.