the topic says everything.
so tell me the diffrence between both of them.
which one u would prefer.
which one is better according to u and why ?
irrelevant. uefi is superior. and you can't find shit without uefi anymore
To a certain extent. If the board manufacture actually knows how to categorize things its amazing. I sometimes prefere the old fashioned normal bios.
Technically uefi isnt a bios. uefi is more or less the next step up from a bios. So instead of saying "I did a POST and got into the bios". You would say "I did a POST and got into the uefi".
I prefer normal bios over Uefi. But if your new to computers Uefi is easier to use normally.
Tell me this, what would have changed from the past to make it so "you can't find shit without uefi anymore".
It does not make it any better that you are using a mouse, only easier. And that does not effect how functional the bios is.
so is it that uefi is the same bios they just changed the interface ? ? ? ?
Essentially. Uefi is a prettier, shinier, easier to use bios. Same functions are available, just usually categorized in a prettier fashion.
UEFI is indeed the successor of BIOS. The step away from BIOS is reasonable and was only a matter of time. BIOS is written in assembly and all drivers (yup, there are drivers in the BIOS) are, too. Apparently it's a pain to develop.
UEFI is written in c (at least the reference implementation) so development is much easier. But there are problems:
- It's new. New means untested, untested means bugs, bugs mean pain for the user (see: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Samsung-UEFI-bug-Notebook-bricked-from-Windows-1801439.html)
- It's closed. Do you know what it does? I don't. Do you know what it can do? Everything.
- so, it's a security risk
- and you can't do cool stuff with it. Can't change it, can't add something, can't do anything.
- microsoft is a little bitch: they require special features in UEFI which are optinal in the reference for a pc to be "microsoft-certified". so basically ms abuses its monopoly once again
- secure boot only lets signed kernels boot; manufacturers have to upload the list and since windows is the dominant OS they only include signed kernels from microsoft. you can't boot another operating system without microsoft or you have to turn of secure boot (which is impossible on ARM)
BIOS has some of the flaws, too, but this definitly no advancement.
I, for one, am not going to buy any hardware with UEFI as long as I can and support coreboot (http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot) which runs on the google chromebooks because they've got everything right.
Classic BIOS will always be my perfered. I know the benifits of UEFI but I find BIOS much of navigatible.