Why Do Some Computer Manufacturers Make A 32 bit UEFI.....? :3

[blackneos940]

This has perplexed me for some time now..... I'm not saying 32 bit is objectively bad, but with the coming Unix Apocalypse, Online Computers with 32 bit Operating Systems that aren't updated eventually should either be Offline, or be ONline with caution..... :\ Yet one can't easily just install a 64 bit OS on a Computer with a 32 bit UEFI implementation.... Take my ASUS X205TA..... It's a great Laptop, but having a 32 bit UEFI, I can't get all the benefits of a 64 bit OS without making a 32 bit EFI File..... :< Not that it's a hassle..... :3 But why do people do this.....? The majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, but with a 32 bit UEFI, well, you get the picture..... :3 Thanks for any ideas guys..... I really appreciate it..... :3

 

[atanere]

Here is a very good explanation from one of the folks at Intel (in 2015). The short version (if TL;DR)... like just about everything with computers... its about money.

I haven't heard of too many laptops or PC's with this, but yours obviously has this issue. I've heard more reports about tablets, and it is one of the things making it so difficult to get Linux to run on a tablet. Tablets frequently have the extra difficulty of locked bootloaders too.

Cheers

 

[wizardfromoz]

Now that's an interesting article, Stan - I am going to have to read that about 3 times to absorb it

And thanks to "Blackie" for sharing the issue with us

I note Stan's linked article also references Matthew Garrett. Matthew, a former RedHat developer, developed Shim, which reports an acceptable key to Windows to allow Linux to be installed and booted, despite Secure Boot being in place.

The Matthew Garrett article, in turn, I am going to have to digest as well. It was written not long after he wrote Shim.

More reading referring around Shim can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2018_March_21

I think I am going to need an antacid

Wizard

 

[blackneos940]

Here is a very good explanation from one of the folks at Intel (in 2015). The short version (if TL;DR)... like just about everything with computers... its about money.

I haven't heard of too many laptops or PC's with this, but yours obviously has this issue. I've heard more reports about tablets, and it is one of the things making it so difficult to get Linux to run on a tablet. Tablets frequently have the extra difficulty of locked bootloaders too.

Cheers

Thanks for that, Atanere!..... :3 Lol, nice Profile Pic..... :3 I'll give the Article a read!..... :3

 

[blackneos940]

Now that's an interesting article, Stan - I am going to have to read that about 3 times to absorb it

And thanks to "Blackie" for sharing the issue with us

I note Stan's linked article also references Matthew Garrett. Matthew, a former RedHat developer, developed Shim, which reports an acceptable key to Windows to allow Linux to be installed and booted, despite Secure Boot being in place.

The Matthew Garrett article, in turn, I am going to have to digest as well. It was written not long after he wrote Shim.

More reading referring around Shim can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2018_March_21

I think I am going to need an antacid

Wizard

Hehe..... :3 No problem..... :3 I noticed OpenBSD has the issue solved with it's own 32 bit EFI File..... :3 Linux does of course as well, obviously..... :3 Thanks for the links!..... :3 I love learning new things about Computers!..... :3 Also, I think Antacids are in order, given the decision involved in 32 bit UEFI.....

 

[atanere]

Lol, nice Profile Pic....

I look a little more like that every day!