Hello,
I want to start working on a new project, and this time I don't want to use grub. I don't have much experience with both, but I have experience with both c and asm. Would it be better to write a bootloader for the bios or write one for UEFI?
Bios or UEFI
Re: Bios or UEFI
Nevermind, I found this thread http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=30610
Re: Bios or UEFI
I would suggest UEFI, because it gives you a lot out of the box.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
- Alan Kay
- Alan Kay
-
BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: Bios or UEFI
In the end, you will want your kernel to be firmware-independent, and bootable from both BIOS and UEFI for better hardware compatibility. Personally, I have not worked with UEFI, but it is more modern and BIOS is obsolete.
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: Bios or UEFI
BIOS, because Microsoft Windows cannot handle two UEFI operating systems! BIOS is good for learning stuff, if you don't care about dual booting and want to be able to use some of those handy UEFI features then go ahead.
OS: Basic OS
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
Re: Bios or UEFI
How is that related to the question? Firstly, you can of course dual boot a UEFI system with Windows. Secondly, why are you even sure the OP is a Windows user?BIOS, because Microsoft Windows cannot handle two UEFI operating systems!
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
- Alan Kay
- Alan Kay