And it's increasingly looking like the main architectural difference between the new Intel-based Macs and, say, Dells or Sony Vaios, could be the key in the DRM chip which authenticates it as an Apple, allowing MacOS X to run on it.
Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Sun Jan 15 01:46:00 2006
I take your point about the bytecode, though isn't it owned and licensed by Intel, who have a vested interest in their own architectures? As such, wouldn't EFI becoming a de facto standard in OpenFirmware's place freeze out the likes of SPARC and (what remains of) PowerPC?
Posted by: toby | http:// | Sun Jan 15 21:12:59 2006
I doubt it. At the worst, other architectures will continue to use other boot methods, and all the x86 world will change over to EFI. Big win for x86 hardware/OS people, no change for the rest. Apple have shown that switching architectures doesn't preclude changing boot code - in fact, apart from the TPM, I think it makes very little difference.
Want to say something? Do so here.
Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.
Posted by: toby | http:// | Sat Jan 14 03:14:33 2006
In what way is EFI proprietary and architecture specific? It looks pretty open to me, as well as being architecture agnostic; there's a bytecode interpreter built into it for writing portable device drivers/POST routines.