7 Responses

  1. maccam94
    maccam94 at |

    My only guess is that Windows does not support “capability checks” like that. Nor would they want to implement it when:
    A) __OSI works fine for them
    B) It helps Linux
    “Bill Gates muses on the merits of making ACPI extentions “somehow Windows specific.”, continuing to say “If (sic) seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.” In the same memo, he suggest defining “the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others, even if they are open.””

    So basically it would be up to the BIOS manufacturers to do this specially for Linux.

  2. Nathan
    Nathan at |

    The difference between Linux and Windows in this area is that if there is a problem with a motherboard/bios feature and Linux then Linux is likely to have a work around within a short amount of time. BIOS is firmware and should probably be replaced less often than an OS kernel, so this makes sense, but with Windows there aren’t the same fixes and the board producers are trying to work out of the box with versions of Windows rather than allowing all features.
    Too bad BIOS and OS don’t negotiate on features; something similar to the LCP layer of PPP.

  3. Louis
    Louis at |

    Does anyone think that this is to disable functionality if the OS is not one that adheres to DRM standards.

  4. Ken Jennings
    Ken Jennings at |

    DRM was my first thought too. I’d suspect motherboard/bios makers of being in cahoots with Microsoft and using this “feature” to disable or reduce hardware functionality if a Microsoft-approve OS is not running the system.

  5. Mike
    Mike at |
  6. DimWit
    DimWit at |

    Can someone tell me why the BIOS should care what OS is going to run? I thought it would be up to the OS to deal with whatever data the BIOS throws at it – as long as it standard driven.

Comments are closed.