Comment by jmillikin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmillikin | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one who thinks the BIOS interface is just about perfect? When I'm trying to diagnose a low-level system problem, having a simple text-based interface is much more useful than pretty marketing slogans.

It's simple fact that hardware manufacturers don't know anything about user interface design, or software in general. Any "value-added" software bundled with motherboards is evidence of this. Look at the screenshots in the article -- they look like a child's first adventures with Visual Basic, cramming in flame decals and lens flairs in every unused inch. Sure, it looks good for marketing, but ask yourself this:

Do I want to be interpreting gradient icons across two cultural barriers, at 3 AM, to figure out why a production system isn't recognizing a new RAID controller?

Furthermore, I am baffled as to why MSI would think a "user-friendly" BIOS replacement is needed. There is no reason for end users to be digging around in the BIOS. If somebody who can't figure out keyboard navigation has accidentally stumbled into the BIOS, the only command they need to know is "reboot".

A lot of the newer laptops I come across have updated BIOS. When I boot into the BIOS my mouse cursor appears, and I can use it to go into the different menus and make changes.

For some reason, seeing a modern GUI in VGA mode on a 1280x720 pixel screen annoys me a million times more than a more BIOSey interface. The new BIOS gives me the same information, and I feel I can accomplish the same tasks in the same amount of time, but the pixelated check boxes, mouse pointer, and buttons piss me off. They don't add anything to the interface. They're just there, looking jagged. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Don't try to render curves on a 640x480 display.

Anyways. Enough ranting. I'm sure most people here will agree with us, but I have a feeling everybody else will either not care or be glad something old will be upgraded.

Even worse, the more the mouse is involved (the more GUI and less CUI it becomes) the less natural using only the keyboard will become, which will be a pain in the arse. I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't always have a mouse (or in the case of our KVM's, a usable mouse)

The user interface is hardly the most important part of EFI. The system interface is much more important. It includes the GUID partitioning scheme as a replacement for the antiquated MBR scheme and other such modernizations. Look at what the Linux kernel has to do to bootstrap itself on a machine using BIOS sometime (spoiler: it ain't pretty).

I've nothing against the technical improvements gained by transitioning to EFI, but surely these are independent of the user interface? The article is regarding MSI's custom pseudo-GUI interfaces, which are (IMO) horrid.

Do you know of any EFI-enabled motherboards which retain the old, effective text-based interface?

Do you know of any EFI-enabled motherboards which retain the old, effective text-based interface?

Servers generally don't have bling. (Maybe excepting SGI.) Most Nehalem servers seem to be using UEFI.

Although this will not much help you, I have worked on servers where the EFI screen looks exactly like the old PhoenixBIOS interface---I would not have known that it was EFI except that the first line of the screen said so.

Familiarity shouldn't stand in the way of progress. A good modern BIOS replacement could eliminate a lot of these low-level issues and offer better troubleshooting tools. For example you could have LOM-ish style features standard on every machine to troubleshoot basic booting problems. Wifi/ethernet booting standardized. Something like target-disk mode for quickly mounting the HD inside of a machine with a dead video card or toasted OS install. You could even have a web browser that could get you access to stuff stored in the cloud in the case of a local HD failure.

But then you'll need a troubleshooter for the troubleshooter (yo dog). Given that most motherboard manufacturers can't seem to figure out even the most rudimentary software development for bundled utilities, I don't trust them to write a web browser.

They don't write their own firmware though, they buy it from one of a few places that hopefully know what they're doing.

I'm all for replacing BIOS. Your parent was discussing the suggested changes to the interface used to interact with it, not the actual BIOS.

BIOS is all about functionality, not about interaction, so features are debatable, but user interface improvement? WHY!? That's like trying to improve the user friendliness of the insides of your engine. Some people will see the insides of your engine, but they are either professionals or hobbyists who accept the risk and difficulty.

(I say extended features are debatable because features means bugs and bloat, and if there's any one thing you NEED TO WORK on your machine, it's the BIOS)

In theory, EFI is supposed to have a shell available, which could make diagnosing low-level problems easier. This is of course assuming that the manufacturers can be arsed to include it alongside their 'point and click guis'.

In almost every case, you'll be able to install your own EFI modules, including a shell -- I haven't seen an implementation yet where you couldn't. It's amazing how much flexibility you have with compliant EFI implementations.

You're spot on about bundled hardware utilities having the corniest GUIs. What is it with these guys and non-rectangular windows (transparency mask) and reinvention of the native window control buttons?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com