Is Apple using BIOS?

[orestes1984]

Just a few things about BIOS, as some people are speaking without knowing what they're saying.

the BIOS of an X86 based PC does not reside on a partition (i.e hard drive, or anywhere else) it resides on a chip on the motherboard exactly the same as a mac and it's open firmware

the BIOS on an X86 based PC does not recognize partitions, or file systems, it recognizes a hard disk, optical disk, floppy disk *shudders*, or USB device (USB Floppy drive, thumb drive, etc, etc...) the BIOS just sees that the drive you choose to boot from is present in your system, therefore a pheonix, or any of the other type of BIOS (in relation to X86) for that matter of which there are 3 diffrent variants for PC could be used in an X86 based mac. The file system and traditionally boot loader is handled by the MBR which comes after the BIOS, and is generally written to the first sector of the disk, with a correctly written MBR an X86 based PC can boot any file system be it NTFS, EXT2, EXT3, Reiser FS, XFS, or even HFS. Linux can boot any of the aforementioned file systems so i don't see how this would be hard for Apple.

As with regards to booting in firewire disk mode, there are some alternatives when it comes to windows PC's, booting via PXE over an ethernet network is just one of them, and besides that in any decent networking OS you can just set up shares over a network to do a similar thing, and you don't need a keyboard, mouse or monitor once it's set up.

in saying all of this there is no real advantage to either OF, or the BIOS as we know it on PC's. but all of that said, the PC Bios will soon be replaced by a GUI based alternative.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm still getting the feeling that Apple made the switch to Intel decision on shorter notice than they want us to believe. They may have been building OS X on both platforms all this time, but they have been using standard PC all along. No work has been done on the hardware. The Developer systems sound like Intel motherboards mounted in a G5 case.

What I'm reading here sounds like Apple hasn't really answered all of these questions for themselves yet. I don't think they're being secretive-- I think they don't know the answers...

 

[SiliconAddict]

Not quite sure where the thing with ThinkPad comes in, but on my T23, there's no separate partition that's used for Graphic Screen (that's all it really is) at startup, it's a part of T23's BIOS.

Maybe this is a new option on the thinkpads. Mine is an X31.
Go into the BIOS and play around with the settings. There is an option to unhide the partition. There really IS a portion that holds the GUI. It’s not in the BIOS itself. Let me check....Go under security there is a setting for the IBM predesktop area. Mine has 3 settings:

-Secure: No user or SW-initiated changes
-Normal (Default): Changes allowed; contents hidden from OS.
-Disabled: Not usable. Visible and reclaimable.


Why does it say reclaimable? Because it also stores an image of the OS so I can restore the system to its factory default state. Under normal circumstances the first thing I do when I get a new computer is blow away the OEM's image but I'm found that IBM really knows their stuff. The preinstalled "stuff" is useful. Esp the keychain like tools that are stored in the system's embedded subsystem chip. Coolest feature EVAR all of this using a dreaded BIOS. I know that BIOS really hasn’t changed that much since day one. Hell you can still get the old school “Press F1 to continue” message to this day if you don’t plug in a keyboard. But there are workarounds and who cares if the GUI is loaded into a hidden partition on the hard drive? If the end result is the same. *shrugs*

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm still getting the feeling that Apple made the switch to Intel decision on shorter notice than they want us to believe. They may have been building OS X on both platforms all this time, but they have been using standard PC all along. No work has been done on the hardware. The Developer systems sound like Intel motherboards mounted in a G5 case.

What I'm reading here sounds like Apple hasn't really answered all of these questions for themselves yet. I don't think they're being secretive-- I think they don't know the answers...

I'm not surprised that Apple has been using generic PCs for development in the lab, but like you, I'm surprised that they aren't further along towards a shipping product than they appear to be. The fact that they made the announcement now instead of a few months down the road lends credence to the suggestion that another shoe may be ready to drop in the Intel-Apple relationship.

 

[Azurael]

They can't be using a standard x86 architecture in the final shipping Macs. That would suck so much. I'm sure they could 'skin' a standard Award/AMI/PhoenixBIOS to make it more pretty, but it would be so un-"Mac" like regardless. Not to mention the architectural issues. Even with an APIC onboard, you only get 24 IRQs in a modern PC versus 255 for most PowerPC chips... That probably won't really be an issue, because not many machines have that much hardware but there are other things like the boot scheduling that would be a nightmare to co-ordinate with x86 hardware. If Apple do it right, these machines will be useable, but I still don't think at a hardware level they're going to have most of the 'nicities' of Open Firmware based machines. There's absolutely no reason for why Apple couldn't use Open Firmware on x86 machines, so I wonder why they claim it'll be a BIOS

 

[mandis]

I wouldn't be surprised if the new intel based macs used the AmiBios or even a Phoenix Bios. I mean think about it, all the negative rumors we've been hearing about apple over the last few months have come true. So what is there to stop this one from coming true?

The Facts:

1. No more PowerPC
2. No more Megahertz Myth
3. No more individual Apple Hardware
4. Macs will never be faster than PCs (they use the same hardware) Occasionaly though they will be slower. We know for a fact that apple will not be releasing new macs every 2 months!
5. The resale values of these macs will follow a similar pattern to those of the high end pc's.
6. No more Open Firware. (Will use standard Bios in order to boot XP and Linux)
7. Similar Motherboard design (form factor) with what we have seen today but no more cool Heatsinks like those in the Powermac G5. Perhaps no more Aluminium cases either in order to cut costs.

Enjoy!!!

(Hey SJ! you are welcome to try and prove me wrong mate!!)

 

[GregA]

The Facts:

1. No more PowerPC
2. No more Megahertz Myth
3. No more individual Apple Hardware
4. Macs will never be faster than PCs (they use the same hardware) Occasionaly though they will be slower. We know for a fact that apple will not be releasing new macs every 2 months!
5. The resale values of these macs will follow a similar pattern to those of the high end pc's.
6. No more Open Firware. (Will use standard Bios in order to boot XP and Linux)
7. Similar Motherboard design (form factor) with what we have seen today but no more cool Heatsinks like those in the Powermac G5. Perhaps no more Aluminium cases either in order to cut costs.

If you're going to call something facts, be more careful

1. Yes - no more PowerPC (I HOPE that if IBM does something brilliant by 2007 Apple might use both, but I doubt it).
2. No - unfortunately the Mhz myth will continue since Pentium-M @ 2Ghz is faster than Pentium-4 @ 3 Ghz... but at least it'll be consistent with Window's users!
3. No - there'll be individual Macs (what do you mean "No more individual Apple hardware"?).
4. yes/No - Chip wise, Macs will share the same chips with Windows machines, and I agree Dell will change its hardware more frequently which can mean a performance edge. But speedwise now it's the OS - and we don't know yet if OSX will ALWAYS be faster than Windows, always the same, or always slower.
5. No - I see no reason why if a PPC Mac lasts 6 years that an Intel Mac wouldn't last the same. Can you point to something about the PPC that makes this so? This may relate to #3
6. Yes/no - no more Open firmware, but probably not BIOS. Check out EFI.
7. Who knows.

I think you'll find Apple designing its own EFI (Bios Replacement), putting in everything it wants from OpenFirmware. It may partner with Intel or another bios company to make it. Using EFI also means they don't need legacy chips on the motherboard and can make a break with the past, which will speed up certain tasks apparently. By 2008 every PC maker will be doing the same though (with Longhorn supporting it then) so EFI won't differentiate Apple much.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There's absolutely no reason for why Apple couldn't use Open Firmware on x86 machines, so I wonder why they claim it'll be a BIOS

Because Open Firmware is a BIOS?

 

[orestes1984]

yes open firmware is a form of BIOS. as are Award/AMI/Pheonix...

On that note i don't see the complaint in using an Award/Ami/Pheonix bios as there is lots of things you can do with the aforementioned BIOS’s that you can't do with open firmware. I guess it's vice versa, but there is nothing wrong with the BIOS as seen in X86 based PC, in fact it can be extremely powerful.

As for IRQ's, there is no such thing as IRQ conflicts in PC's these days unless it's something that is extremely picky, and i can't say I’ve had an IRQ issue since the days of owning a 486.

As for the latest version of windows not being able to run on old hardware this is a myth, in fact at the moment windows XP is more (officially) backwards compatible then OS X, yes i know you can install OS X on pre G3 computers with a little effort, but with windows XP you can choose to install it on a Pentium 1 (or any one of the numerous clone variants)

 

[jsalzer]

Reverse Engineering

And I'll believe that insane clame when I see it. There is nothing in the world that can't be reverse engineered.

Ah, but can one reverse engineer a butterfly?

 

[cubist]

First, where does this ludicrous idea come from that Apple are going to use a standard PC BIOS? Of course they're not going to do that.

Second, where does this ludicrous idea come from that Apple, a company that blah blah blah...

(Big, big hint: A standard PC BIOS can't boot an HFS+ volume.)

Where does the really ludicrous idea come from that Apple has to do everything better and/or differently? This whole change is about Apple hardware being just like everyone else's. Sure, they'll use BIOS. They'll have the whole four-entry partition table, MBR, and all the rest of it. And if the BIOS can't boot HFS+, no problem, just put in a 1MB partition with logic that can. Get over it.

 

[chatin]

BIOS is the weak point that may bring down MS once and for all.

I'm still getting the feeling that Apple made the switch to Intel decision on shorter notice than they want us to believe. They may have been building OS X on both platforms all this time, but they have been using standard PC all along. No work has been done on the hardware. The Developer systems sound like Intel motherboards mounted in a G5 case.

What I'm reading here sounds like Apple hasn't really answered all of these questions for themselves yet. I don't think they're being secretive-- I think they don't know the answers...

One of the weakest points of all Wintel systems has always been power management! (sleep modes, hibernation, starting up and shutting down) Very buggy to this day!

The BIOS is something that Apple is leaving to Intel (Phoenix) engineers for now, and that does not bode well for the tight hardware / software integration that Apple is known for.

There needs to be a replacement for the traditional BIOS. It's certainly possible that Apple can help to set new standards.

MS has essentially failed with its Intel EFI initiative of 2003.

Anything Apple wants from Intel, I think Apple can have - when it comes to new ways of thinking about hardware and software integration! And that is a very good thing!

 

[IJ Reilly]

One of the weakest points of all Wintel systems has always been power management! (sleep modes, hibernation, starting up and shutting down) Very buggy to this day!

The BIOS is something that Apple is leaving to Intel (Phoenix) engineers for now, and that does not bode well for the tight hardware / software integration that Apple is known for.

There needs to be a replacement for the traditional BIOS. It's certainly possible that Apple can help to set new standards.

MS has essentially failed with its Intel EFI initiative of 2003.

Anything Apple wants from Intel, I think Apple can have - when it comes to new ways of thinking about hardware and software integration! And that is a very good thing!

What does Microsoft have to do with EFI? Just wondering -- I thought this was an Intel project.

 

[Rocketman]

Wikipedia definition:

I'm sure that the new Apple BIOS will retain most, if not all of this functionality. And, don't worry, the Intel Macs will still have the gray Apple logo and that spinny progress wheel at the bottom. C'mon, this is Apple we're talking about. They'll make it good.

They should go back to the "Mac Plus" startup image.

Rocketman

 

[chatin]

What does Microsoft have to do with EFI? Just wondering -- I thought this was an Intel project.

I think there was a Microsoft agenda, because the project is co-sponsored by MS. And the technology is dubbed Longhorn friendly.

Anyway, only Gateway bought a license and made 1 model.

 

[WM.]

yes open firmware is a form of BIOS. as are Award/AMI/Pheonix...

On that note i don't see the complaint in using an Award/Ami/Pheonix bios as there is lots of things you can do with the aforementioned BIOS’s that you can't do with open firmware.

Okay. Like what?

Make sure that whatever you come up with is truly something that the PC BIOS standard allows that Open Firmware doesn't, and not just a difference in implementations (e.g. Apple's implementations of OF don't allow you to change RAM timings, but that's not a limitation of OF).

edit: Now I'm not saying there isn't anything you can do with a BIOS that you can't also do with OF. I'd love to learn about any limitations of OF, in part so that I can feel better about Apple's move away from it.

I guess it's vice versa, but there is nothing wrong with the BIOS as seen in X86 based PC, in fact it can be extremely powerful.

It's rather limited and inflexible. I already linked to this once in this thread, but I think it explains the problem pretty well...

 

[iMeowbot]

What does Microsoft have to do with EFI? Just wondering -- I thought this was an Intel project.

There are Microsoft-specific extensions in Intel's EFI spec, its binary format is designed to be easily generated by Microsoft tools, and Microsoft already support it (Windows Swerver already uses it on Itanic systems; in the past, non-x86 Windows systems used Open Firmware).

 

[javiercr]

As with regards to booting in firewire disk mode, there are some alternatives when it comes to windows PC's, booting via PXE over an ethernet network is just one of them, and besides that in any decent networking OS you can just set up shares over a network to do a similar thing, and you don't need a keyboard, mouse or monitor once it's set up.

in saying all of this there is no real advantage to either OF, or the BIOS as we know it on PC's. but all of that said, the PC Bios will soon be replaced by a GUI based alternative.

those alternatives are much more complicated than booting from a firewire disk the way the mac does, so that is an advantage of the mac. i heard the dev kits boot from usb2 but not firewire, not sure if it's true, i hope the final product can boot from both and whatever BIOS they have it keeps the same commands and functions as macs have now (booting from firewire and converting the mac into a firewire drive)

 

[steeldrivingjon]

BIOS can burn in hell. Open Firmware is a million times better...

Option on Startup -graphical view of all possible ways to start up. (may take a bit). Can use mouse.
F3 on Startup -no startup sound
C on Startup -force startup from CD
X on Startup -Force startup into OS X (on dualboot system, is not permanent)
T on Startup -FireWire Target Disk Mode
Command+Option+P+R on Startup -Zap PRAM
Command+S on Startup -Single User Mode
Command+V on Startup -Verbose Startup
Command+Option+N+V on Startup -Open Firmware prompt

Eat that BIOS!

The only thing you list that requires Open Firmware is the OF prompt. All else could be accomplished with something that is neither Open Firmware nor a run-of-the-mill BIOS.

It's kinda silly to get hung up on "Open Firmware" when what you really want is a few useful features. Who gives a crap how it's implemented?

 

[steeldrivingjon]

I'm still getting the feeling that Apple made the switch to Intel decision on shorter notice than they want us to believe. They may have been building OS X on both platforms all this time, but they have been using standard PC all along. No work has been done on the hardware. The Developer systems sound like Intel motherboards mounted in a G5 case.

Whatever work they've done on hardware is *not finished*, so it would hardly make a good platform for developers. Helping the developers debug would be harder if they weren't sure the hardware was debugged yet.

With the Intel motherboard, Apple was probably able to do as little as possible to get a stable, dependable system and drivers ready. Now all the developers will be testing on identical, well-known hardware, that all came from one vendor, and that vendor is helping Apple. That will make it far, far easier to support developers who are making the transition.

Anyway, this gives Apple more time to improve their designs, more time for Jonathan Ive to be creative building a shell around the result.

You wouldn't want Apple to use the first thing they came up with, would you?

 

[steeldrivingjon]

i heard the dev kits boot from usb2 but not firewire

Shouldn't be a surprise, given that firewire isn't as commonly used in the PC world.

Implies *nothing* about the final product Apple will ship.

The developer machine is to the shipping product what a little donut spare tire is to the real thing. It's just there to get you down the road a little ways.

 

[opq]

Whatever, as long as they keep their trademark "Bong!" startup chime I'm happy

 

[Sun Baked]

Whatever, as long as they keep their trademark "Bong!" startup chime I'm happy

What about the trademark one button mouse?

Edit: Sometimes you just have to know when to let go.

 

[orestes1984]

Okay. Like what?

Make sure that whatever you come up with is truly something that the PC BIOS standard allows that Open Firmware doesn't, and not just a difference in implementations (e.g. Apple's implementations of OF don't allow you to change RAM timings, but that's not a limitation of OF).

edit: Now I'm not saying there isn't anything you can do with a BIOS that you can't also do with OF. I'd love to learn about any limitations of OF, in part so that I can feel better about Apple's move away from it.


It's rather limited and inflexible. I already linked to this once in this thread, but I think it explains the problem pretty well...

Apart from the obvious of having a MUCH simpler interface then open firmware, the BIOS in a PC gives you control of every piece of hardware in your computer, and not just changing the ram timings, you can change the voltages being supplied to your computer, over clock your ram/CPU/AGP etc, etc... change aperture sizes, basically anything you can think of as with regards to fiddling with your hardware to get the most out of it...

to do the same in open firmware is a pain in the arse.. though some of it can be done through OF, it's definitely not as easy to achieve the same thing with OF, and it's definitely not right in front of you in a menu system.

a Pheonix/Award/AMI bios does what you need and nothing more, i'll agree that OF can provide you with more possibilities, but a lot of the time this is unnecessary, and this is where the aforementioned BIOS versions win out...

besides that fact, anything else you need to do can be easily done outside of the BIOS, and i really don't see the need for all the extra junk that can be found in OF

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

Combine it with EFI and this is very likely the mechanism Apple will use to insure 1) A great startup experience, and 2) High security and an inability to run Mac OS on boxes other than Apple's.

I see a trend forming here. Apple will embrace and showcase Intel's latest technologies as they roll off the line. Controlling the OS they have that luxury. Hence, Intel's "showpony".

When a new Mac is released Windows won't support that new technology. Eventually Windows will catch up and you'll be able to boot an old Mac with Windows.

For a while, OSXi (my, that spells 11, doesn't it?) will require the newer features and that will prevent people from running OSXi on their existing Intel machines.

Eventually you'll be able to run an old version of OSX on a new Dell (e.g.) because by the time Dell catches up on hardware there will be a new version of OSX out (~ yearly).

This keeps Apple in a leadership position, allows them to restrict OSXi to their new hardware, for a while anyway, and will eventually let people try OSXi on their other-brand hardware, but not before that hardware is less desirable than what Apple's selling.

I like it.