I don't know what to think of this.

Is it progress or just even more control for Intel?

I would say its progress.
Its time to put the 32 bit OS to the grave and move on. We have had 64 bit CPU for more than a decade now and most newer software runs on 64 bit systems.

But I hate UEFI...

Are you sure you need CSM for a 32 bit UEFI installation? There are a lot of devices (most of them tablets) running 32 bits Windows on an UEFI setup.

GoldenXBut I hate UEFI...

Are you sure you need CSM for a 32 bit UEFI installation? There are a lot of devices (most of them tablets) running 32 bits Windows on an UEFI setup.

What do you hate about it? I mean, I don't mess with it enough for it to make much difference. I set it up, and that's that. No different than a BIOS.

UEFI Itself is an improvement. Add Intel to it and its an endless disaster.

In combination with Intel it is just plain and simple unstable and has endless security issues. The rest doesn't need to be mentioned after those 2.

I wasted years of work that I didn't had to waste to get those CSM Modules running stable because UEFI wasn't able to do it on Intel Embedded Platforms.
So in average from 5 companies with 1 Intel Embedded Platform I get 1 working at least to a level that is comparable to 2000ish System Stability and possibly after 2-3 years a 2nd one.

WyverexI don't know what to think of this.

Is it progress or just even more control for Intel?

Its called killing windows 7. Its Microsoft's wet dream.

BrainCruserIts called killing windows 7. Its Microsoft's wet dream.

Windows 7 is UEFI-aware.

WyverexI don't know what to think of this.

Is it progress or just even more control for Intel?

Progress. Look into how MBR boot works. It's freaking BULLSHIT that we've used that piece of crap for 30 odd years essentially unchanged

EboI would say its progress.
Its time to put the 32 bit OS to the grave and move on. We have had 64 bit CPU for more than a decade now and most newer software runs on 64 bit systems.

UEFI can run on regular x86 (32bit), IA64 (Itanium.. where it originated from in the first place, as EFI) as well as ARM (AArch64). You could port it to MIPS, AVR, GCN, whatever if you were so inclined.

BeerbamUEFI Itself is an improvement. Add Intel to it and its an endless disaster.

In combination with Intel it is just plain and simple unstable and has endless security issues. The rest doesn't need to be mentioned after those 2.

I wasted years of work that I didn't had to waste to get those CSM Modules running stable because UEFI wasn't able to do it on Intel Embedded Platforms.
So in average from 5 companies with 1 Intel Embedded Platform I get 1 working at least to a level that is comparable to 2000ish System Stability and possibly after 2-3 years a 2nd one.

*sigh*

Intel built EFI/UEFI from scratch, then founded the consortium that oversees it. Really, saying adding Intel to UEFI ruins it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I can name and shame quite a few non-Intel OEMs for having absolute trash UEFI implementations.

Embedded platform also suffers from that old chestnut too: embedded platforms suck.

Finally, any particular reason why you didn't try a pure UEFI environment? I've had highly mixed experiences when relying on CSMs, but generally good times with pure UEFI.

BrainCruserIts called killing windows 7. Its Microsoft's wet dream.

Windows 7 happily runs with UEFI, though the iso is broken when used with a USB installer (works fine from a DVD/virtual DVD), so you have to fix it before you can install it in UEFI mode from USB.

btarunrWindows 7 is UEFI-aware.

I have had serious issues installing windows 7 on UEFI machines, most of the time I couldn't even get the install usb to boot. Windows 8.1 was very straightforward in comparison.

btarunrWindows 7 is UEFI-aware.

Still requires CSM in order to work, so it's more like "formally UEFI-aware". According to slides, with an introduction of Class 3 there will be no CSM, and Class 3+ will also force SecureBoot.
But anyway, it's no biggie. Windows 7 is EOL in 2020, and everything after that does not need CSM: even FreeBSD, Linux and various Android x86 distros.

BrainCruserI have had serious issues installing windows 7 on UEFI machines, most of the time I couldn't even get the install usb to boot. Windows 8.1 was very straightforward in comparison.

1) Make sure you have a GPT partition table on your USB stick
2) Create a UEFI installation disk for Win7
3) Enable CSM in your UEFI settings (may be also called "Windows 7 boot mode" or something along these lines).

silentbogoStill requires CSM in order to work, so it's more like "formally UEFI-aware". According to slides, with an introduction of Class 3 there will be no CSM, and Class 3+ will also force SecureBoot.
But anyway, it's no biggie. Windows 7 is EOL in 2020, and everything after that does not need CSM: even FreeBSD, Linux and various Android x86 distros.


1) Make sure you have a GPT partition table on your USB stick
2) Create a UEFI installation disk for Win7
3) Enable CSM in your UEFI settings (may be also called "Windows 7 boot mode" or something along these lines).

CSM is the old BIOS, it is the thing being killed.

"But anyway, it's no biggie. Windows 7 is EOL in 2020," Microsoft's wet dream, as I said. They can't wait for Windows 10 to be the only "reasonable" choice, so that they can start dicking people with their windows store.

ZeDestructorProgress. Look into how MBR boot works. It's freaking BULLSHIT that we've used that piece of crap for 30 odd years essentially unchanged



UEFI can run on regular x86 (32bit), IA64 (Itanium.. where it originated from in the first place, as EFI) as well as ARM (AArch64). You could port it to MIPS, AVR, GCN, whatever if you were so inclined.



*sigh*

Intel built EFI/UEFI from scratch, then founded the consortium that oversees it. Really, saying adding Intel to UEFI ruins it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I can name and shame quite a few non-Intel OEMs for having absolute trash UEFI implementations.

Embedded platform also suffers from that old chestnut too: embedded platforms suck.

Finally, any particular reason why you didn't try a pure UEFI environment? I've had highly mixed experiences when relying on CSMs, but generally good times with pure UEFI.



Windows 7 happily runs with UEFI, though the iso is broken when used with a USB installer (works fine from a DVD/virtual DVD), so you have to fix it before you can install it in UEFI mode from USB.

If you remove the non from "non-Intel OEMs" then you are in my world.
I do know that one of the reasons is that most companies got rid of their skilled people with the change to UEFI if on purpose or not but if the new ones aren't up to the task then there is only one answer.

To the rest were you truly involved in any System development so you can understand my words? :

Can't tell anything that is under NDA but with standard Bios it was a task of 1-2 weeks with board/Bios Devs.
If still needed sending the stuff in to get it analyzed from Intel&Co with max 2 months till we had a solution.
System complexity was back then comparable. Eg. the Limitations of Interrupts&Co just needed skilled people working and the UEFI Version solves it different but still has many identical Limitations doesn't matter how much VT you integrate the hardware defines them.
ME & Co are not relevant as they are limited to only needed working parts.

Since Intel has only priority on UEFI we found many Issues that are not even solvable with UEFI without CSM usage.

So we needed to switch to CSM, sometimes even switch to a different OS and spending at least every time half a year.
That is definitely no fun and what I am speaking about and everybody else involved in similar designs also questions why the **** do we even need that?
Just as a reminder, I'm speaking of stable systems. Not RT and not your gaming PC.

BrainCruser, so that they can start dicking people with their windows store.

I like the store, and I wish like 90% of the programs people use were on the store. Remember the days of Conduit and endless browser toolbars and additional stuff that got installed unless you chose the advanced installation, which people in general did not do? I do, and I do not miss them. A controlled app store is what Windows needs.

FrickI like the store, and I wish like 90% of the programs people use were on the store. Remember the days of Conduit and endless browser toolbars and additional stuff that got installed unless you chose the advanced installation, which people in general did not do? I do, and I do not miss them. A controlled app store is what Windows needs.

I will take thousand toolbars over Microsoft. Atleast toolbar vendors are honest malware vendors. Also, Microsoft themselves have Bing bar, and they try to push you to use Internet Explorer every, and I mean every chance they get.
Microsoft has killed my work laptop 3 times these last two weeks by installing driver "updates" I didn't ask for, and have no way of stopping. It had to be rolled back every time, taking 1-2 hours of my work time to do so. I will clean 10 of my family's computers if I have to, but I am not giving Microsoft that control, even if it means completely eliminating windows from my life.

Isn't the only way to use USB installation media is if you have CSM enabled? That's my only issue with this as I've never been able to get it to work on any of my machines without CSM enabled.

BrainCruserIts called killing windows 7. Its Microsoft's wet dream.

This has nothing to do with Windows 7.

btarunrWindows 7 is UEFI-aware.

You left out completely compatible, but it's all good.

BrainCruserI have had serious issues installing windows 7 on UEFI machines, most of the time I couldn't even get the install usb to boot. Windows 8.1 was very straightforward in comparison.

That says more about your inability to properly utilize and understand the Windows 7 installation procedure. I have never had any issues installing Windows 7, or even VistaSP2 on a UEFI enabled system.

FrickA controlled app store is what Windows needs.

Couldn't disagree more. That is the last thing the PC platform needs.

I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, this is progress and I like that. On the other hand, as an IT tech, a lot of the bootable tools I use aren't UEFI aware or are but don't function properly when booted in UEFI mode, so this is kind of a bummer.

lexluthermiesterCouldn't disagree more. That is the last thing the PC platform needs.

Why? Unless you mean if the appstore will be the exclusive way to install programs, in which case I would agree. But I don't see a downside with a controlled app store.

FrickBut I don't see a downside with a controlled app store.

Absolutely agree.
The absence of one is the reason why PlayMarket, AppStore and Windows marketplace degraded so much.
I wouldn't mind having a functional software distribution platform with curated Apps, adequate QC by alive people, and proper measures against rating abuse and app-spam.
Kind of what Sony had in mind for Tizen, but settled on yet another conventional crapware dunghole. Or like early Apple AppStore...

I'd have to agree that Windows needs the app store model, it should cut down a great many ways to infect people's systems since all apps would have to come from the store.

I have said it before and I'll say it again... the next generation of operating systems with app stores isn't for us tech people, it's for people who have no damn clue what they are doing and manage to get their systems infected from here to next Tuesday. Those are the people who need all the hand holding that they can get and a whole lot more. Face it people, us tech people are in the minority of people who use these systems; the majority need all the help that they can get.

How many times have you encountered a person and you want to rip their computer away and hand them an iPad? I have on multiple occasions.

lexluthermiesterThat says more about your inability to properly utilize and understand the Windows 7 installation procedure.

I have installed every Windows OS from XP onwards, and all the major linux distros(Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, both headless and desktop environments).
I have also programmed an actual boot system for android. And have created a custom u-boot version to enable secure boot on a platform that doesn't support secure boot by itself.
But yeah, lets go with I don't understand windows 7 boot system.

lexluthermiesterI have never had any issues installing Windows 7, or even VistaSP2 on a UEFI enabled system.

In UEFI mode? Not BIOS emulation on UEFI enabled machine?

I wonder what the FreeDOS guys think of this. I know a lot of boot tools, hobby bootloaders and to some extent OSs are heavily reliant on BIOS and can't be easily rewritten, not that that matters to anyone.

EDIT: Wait, class 3+ will FORCE Secure Boot?!

BrainCruserI have installed every Windows OS from XP onwards, and all the major linux distros(Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, both headless and desktop environments).

And I have used every OS since CPM and Fortran.

BrainCruserI have also programmed an actual boot system for android. And have created a custom u-boot version to enable secure boot on a platform that doesn't support secure boot by itself.

How does that relate to Windows 7 and UEFI?

BrainCruserBut yeah, lets go with I don't understand windows 7 boot system.

Ok, sounds good.

BrainCruserIn UEFI mode? Not BIOS emulation on UEFI enabled machine?

In full UEFI mode, or EFI mode as some board makers call it.

FrickWhy? Unless you mean if the appstore will be the exclusive way to install programs, in which case I would agree. But I don't see a downside with a controlled app store.

Control. I am not willing to surrender control of my computing devices to a third party, especially Microsoft. You may not see the downsides, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

btarunrNewer versions of Windows Secure Boot will require UEFI Class 3 devices to function. This also affects booting with your main display plugged into graphics cards older than 4 years (launched roughly before 2013), which lack UEFI-ready video BIOS.

Well, that's one way of stimulating the PC hardware market. I get the feeling that Wintel will "accidentally" not block updates of Windows Secure Boot and screw people with older motherboards.

The graphics card thing probably isn't an common issue though; I don't see people shoving in 7+ year old graphics card into a new mobo unless it's an old card used for testing/stopgap.

BrainCruserIts called killing windows XP. Its Microsoft's wet dream.

Fixed that for you.

Microsoft still has a raging hard-on for getting people off Windows XP after almost a decade. You can still shove XP on newer mobos though without some newer chipset functionality just like Vista and 7 right now. Getting people off Windows 7 probably isn't far off though. But this isn't it.

Out of curiosity, anyone know if XP64 needs CSM? It's not exactly XP32 but also not exactly what's commonly thought of as a "64-bit OS".

trparkyI have said it before and I'll say it again... the next generation of operating systems with app stores isn't for us tech people, it's for people who have no damn clue what they are doing and manage to get their systems infected from here to next Tuesday. Those are the people who need all the hand holding that they can get and a whole lot more. Face it people, us tech people are in the minority of people who use these systems; the majority need all the help that they can get.

Apple's recent success comes from catering to the unwashed masses, and there are a lot more of them than us. Microsoft is certainly taking a cue from that with Windows 10. Apple's dumbing-down, hand-holding, and overpriced hardware ("Apple Tax") is absurd to us. But it appeals to people who lack the brain cells, can't be bothered, or would rather be doing other stuff than securing their systems. A little knowledge goes a long way, but as the old saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it". If people ever needed something to continually restore their lack of faith in humanity, this would be it.

So how will I boot from my optical drive then? o_O