![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is "While the name BIOS is an acronym, it is also a play on the Greek word βιος (bios) life. " intentional, or not? Dysprosia 08:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thats not NPOV1
Read-Only Memory (ROM) chips are much slower to read than Random Access Memory (RAM). True. See later.
The storage capability of a ROM is also an issue, computer programs placed in ROM must be small and limited in features. In addition, BIOS code is a guarded trade secret, and the handful of vendors are often obfuscated their BIOS code to protect it from reverse-engineering. As technology advances, the features and functionalities built into the BIOS code begin to remove most of the limitations, or provide a workaround for them.
Most systems these days copy the BIOS code from the slow ROM into the faster RAM. Known as shadow RAM... done to speed up the BIOS routines.
The latest BIOS code support Plug and Play hardware components and Operating Systems, making system configuration much easier. Also, more and more manufacturer's license BIOS technology and optimize it to work with their components or systems.
My main reservation about the bits I cut out are: a) It views BIOS just a the PC BIOS everyone initially thinks of b) I'm not sure of its NPOV c) BIOS'es (in the PC ROM sense) are more like bootstrap roms than anything else, as most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore.
Made several additions based on coding BIOSs for Phoenix Technologies. Though most people today equate BIOS = firmware = PC BIOS = boot, the first time I saw the term 'BIOS' was in 1981 source code from IBM's Technical Reference Manual. Thus, BIOS may be specific to the IBM PC, though it's meaning may have expanded in the last 20 years. Robert Keller
I think this requires some additional thought or clarification. "most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore". That is, apparently you mean to say they don't use the DOS compatible BIOS routines, but they do. Also they use ASL routines which are provided by the BIOS - maybe this is a grey area though. On the first point, they still use the DOS BIOS routines for booting (INT 10, INT13, etc). Maybe you just mean the kernel doesn't use these routines anymore - on that we would basically agree.
On the second point, ASL/AML, it can be a grey area because there is a semi-valid argument that they are or are not BIOS routines. In my mind, they are provided by a BIOS vendor and written by a BIOS engineer and they express the same old BIOS functionality in a more modern way - they are BIOS routines. Of course, you could argue that a BIOS routine has to be DOS compatible or its not BIOS. I would counter that argument in that it is dated and unrealistic and in reality a DOS limitation and not a BIOS limitation.
--
Riluve (
talk)
20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we please get some mention of the new EFI BIOS? -Unsigned I started an Extensible_Firmware_Interface like 4-5 years ago. Of course there is nothing left of what I started :-( -- Riluve ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole BBS section needs to go. Its more of a suggestion than a specification. As far as I know the "BBS API" is just the PnP and PCI config space which the BBS suggests a BIOS read to get device information. Granted, its been 5 years since I read this "specification", but it was no specification the last time I saw it. It pointed out issues and problems but didn't have hard-line solutions for most of them. Furthermore, the issues it did try to solve, if implemented, no one would use/buy the result. Has there been an update since the original? If so, I haven't seen it. In short, BBS should not be taken seriously.
Some comments about the article: “which at a minimum drives the keyboard and provides primitive output to a display. ” This is incorrect. There is no need for keyboard support and the output to a display is misleading (especially on the primitive note). For example, A server BIOS has no need for keyboard support and for USB keyboard, the BIOS needs only to support USB HID’s and not act as a driver for the KBC. Rather, at a minimum, the BIOS initializes memory and programs the memory controller. Also, it discovers and initializes buses on the system (be it PCI, ISA, PCI-E or whatnot).
As for the primitive output display – it seems this “primitive” aspect should be something more about ASCII which could be on a local display or sent out say a serial port to a remote display. In the latter case, the display function, strictly speaking, is not supported. Maybe it would be better to say it would support ASCII console (at a minimum). That could be local or remote.
“most modern BIOS implementations” I would say all BIOSes are modern, maybe contemporary would put a finer point on it.
“My main reservation about the bits I cut out are: a) It views BIOS just a the PC BIOS everyone initially thinks of b) I'm not sure of its NPOV c) BIOS'es (in the PC ROM sense) are more like bootstrap roms than anything else, as most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore.”
I am not sure what this is referencing, but it has an inaccurate characterization in it. That is to say, sure contemporary OSes no longer use the runtime services provided by the BIOS, but they are still provided. It is still a useful thing to be able to boot to DOS. If we are talking about this stuff, then it seems fair to mention ACPI as well.
As to EFI, I can draft up something if you would like. It is going to be the new PC standard. Starting with longhorn, and theoretically afterwards the only MS supported firmware interface. There are some introductory things about it on Intels website.
LMAO - ok see, this looks like me, I guess I can get a little crazy sometimes. It must be dusty on this talk page. No one cares about BIOS? -- Riluve ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the image of a BIOS on a payphone is not good enough for this article. It could be replaced by a screenshot (probably taken with a camera), clear, sharp, glare-free and only showing the BIOS screen (not the border of the monitor for example). An exact reproduction would be good as well. -- Bernard François 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a better picrure: http://deepthought.ena.si/logo/bios/award.png - AWARD BIOS
http://www.ellak.gr/pub/OpenGuides/Debian/pics/app1/bios.png - PhoenixBIOS
or http://cdn.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/AppuntiLinux/immagini/bios-borg/ - many "screenshots"
Here's another one, made by me. Not an actual screenshot; I made it by extracting the OEM font from my video ROM and "drawing" the setup screen manually, with some help from self-written scripts. This is exactly, scanline for scanline, what appears on my screen when I enter BIOS setup (well, the palette may be a bit off. And yes, it is 10 years old - and still works!). You may replace File:AwardBIOS_CMOS_Setup_Utility.png with this, I don't claim any copyright on it (well, per Bridgeman v. Corel I actually can't claim it in the US). Why won't I simply register and do it myself? Good question. Well, I'm planning to, but for now I'd like to remain quasi-anonymous. Ian ( 77.254.8.139 ( talk) 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC))
The BIOS is located on address FFFF:0000 ? --
Frap
12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No
--
Riluve (
talk)
21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You may add information what is BIOS Release Number and BIOS Reference Number. Cya Jerry -- 195.113.141.199 ( talk) 09:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As it's long been a source of confusion, with little discussion had, I've amended the article to define BIOS specifically as the PC (IBM PC Compatible/IBM AT+/PC97+) firmware which provides the well known Interrupt interface found in the original IBM PC, that is well documented in Ralf Browns Interrupt list and appended to by BIOS manufacturers. While this leaves Wikipedia without an article, or at least information (could be added to the firmware article?) on boot firmware, or at least upon basic system ROM as opposed to generic firmware. The other issue lays in actually expressing the definition. I've currently used the term "de facto standard", however technically that's incorrect. The BIOS is a term that relates to every implementation of a BIOS that is built up on the original system, as a whole, but is compromised from numerous sources, some with specifications and not all implementations supporting all the functionality. Can anyone word the introduction to express this idea succinctly? I will work on it, but I'm sure someone far more adapt than me could do it first, and best. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I am thinking, but it needs better writing, so I wouldn't want to add it to the article now.
In computing, the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) [1] , also known as the System BIOS, refers to a component in IBM PC Compatible computers, based upon the original IBM PC firmware, and numerous continuing developments, that is an implementation specific system based upon a de facto standard boot firmware interface. [2]
Basically we need to word the development as a diverse production, with features constantly being borrowed and merged into an unmaintained standardisation. In the same way that E820 was brought from implementation into de facto status, or that the EDD specification was implemented across the board. Any issues? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Last sentence points to dd, which is useless for accessing BIOS chips. I've changed dd to flashrom, which is the right UNIX utility for this, but it got reverted by user Wtshymanski. I disagree both with that revert, and with mentioning dd in this context. -- Cghost ( talk) 13:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If the BIOS has moved to buses such as SPI, how can the CPU still easily boot from a hardwired address such as CS:IP FFFF:0000 (see Booting#Boot_sequence_on_standard_PC_.28IBM-PC_compatible.29)? -- Abdull ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly replace generated image with real hardware version? http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3301/realhw.jpg I made it myself Smeezekitty ( talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A bit of redundancy can increase clarity. e.g. CD-ROM Disc (Compact Disc Read Only Memory Disc), DVD Video (Digital Versatile/Video Disc Video), SAT Test (Standardized Achievment Test Test), and BIOS System (Basic Input-Output System System).
Can the article retain "BIOS systems"? - Brewthatistrue 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
Just in reading the first two paragraphs, this article states incorrectly what BIOS is. Just want to share what I know; no time to do any serious editing on this article. First of all, BIOS is not a boot loader. BIOS includes a boot loader, but it is less than 5% of BIOS. BIOS also is not designed to load an operating system and then be forgotten. As the IBM Technical Reference manuals for the various PC-family machines, which originally defined the BIOS, clearly indicate, the BIOS is designed to be a low-level hardware abstraction layer, and IBM recommends (originally) its universal use. So, in other words, the BIOS is the earlier counterpart to things like the Windows API, which Windows requires all programs to use for hardware access, prohibiting (and preventing, as it can) direct manipulation of the hardware. The second paragraph goes on to say that the primary purpose of BIOS is to initialize hardware devices into some known minimal operative state and then. That may be the perspective of the programmers of large, ultra-sophisticated modern operating systems, but it is not objectively the purpose of BIOS. BIOS does not initialize devices so that other programs can directly manipulate them afterward, although it does allow for that in some cases (notably video display devices and serial UARTs). BIOS initializes devices so that it can provide services using them. BIOS is designed to allow other programs to go around it and even to essentially wipe out its control and capacity after its initialization is done, but this is largely because it is an Intel x86 real mode program (or, depending on perspective, a collection of programs) and there is no protection in real mode to prevent this; a program running in real mode essentially owns the machine, until it hands it back nicely to its caller. (It's sort of like renting your house to someone while you go on vacation--it's up to their good behavior to preserve your house the way you expect for when you get it back.) All operating systems that run purely in protected mode abandon BIOS, since they can't call it without switching to real mode. Therefore, for those operating systems, the only useful effect of BIOS is to initialize devices and perform the initial stage of booting. That BIOS is usually used that way today doesn't make that all that BIOS is.
I don't know much about the few "alternatives for Legacy BIOS in the x86 world" today, but I suspect they may be more focused on just initializing those devices necessary for booting (i.e. keyboard input, basic video, disk drives, and network adapters) than supporting every device in the machine through a standard interface. That is what BIOS aims to do, whether or not it is used by modern programs. Old programs (anything under DOS) still relies on it, and so DOS emulators must either thunk BIOS calls (through to real mode) or emulate BIOS completely.
The third paragraph is better, touching on this basic concept. However, it is not something else that BIOS "can be said" to be. The correct description of BIOS is that this is what it is, although that is how it's most often actually used in modern times. Feel free to use any phrases, sentences, or other parts of this message to improve the article.
People also commonly use the term BIOS to refer to CMOS Setup, or, more generally, a system configuration program in ROM, using sentences like "You have to enable the second IDE channel in BIOS." The BIOS is what primarily uses these settings, but the setup program is not BIOS, it is a program that configures BIOS and may, at most, be considered a small portion of BIOS. However, this usage is common in colloquial speech, and so we must acknowledge that it has come to be a second meaning of the word--BIOS is either the actual BIOS or the BIOS Setup Utility (program.)
I have a strong opinion on this subject, I admit. If anyone thinks I'm off base and wants to argue another position, please do so politely. I'm not attacking anyone, only some ideas; let's keep it that way. (I may not get back here to read it, but hopefully this will still start a discussion.)
Another problem is that the article text makes no mention of POST, which is the only operation of BIOS, other than the brief action of the boot loader, that is actually visible to the user and takes observable time.
71.242.27.236 ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, this article is mostly bollocks. Out of the 20+ BIOSes I've encountered in the last few decades, only about 4 of them have fitted within the bounds of this article. This is an article on *PC* BIOSes primarily. Almost nothing in the article applies to any BIOS that's ever run on any Alpha-, Sparc-, ARM-, or POWER-based machine I've ever used. (And probably the MIPS and HPPA ones too, but I never touched the BIOSes on those, so can't be sure). Everyone who's contributed to this article should feel ashamed of the depth of their ignorance, this is possibly one of the poorest quality wikipedia articles I've ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.183.129 ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source to show that it actually refers to BIOS as in Basic I/O System Built in Operating System? I've only ever heard the term used for the double meaning in relation to Operating System's built into firmware, and not to actual BIOS'. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk)
22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
|[...] | |/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) | | COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL | JUNE, 1975 | | */ | |[...] | |/* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) | | COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL | JUNE, 1975 | | */ | |[...]
At this time, BIOS and BDOS were already logically seperate modules inside the same source code. The physical separation of the BIOS and the BDOS came somewhat later in 1975-1977 with CP/M 1.3 and 1.4, also inspired by input of Glenn Ewing, a developer at IMSAI, who adapted the CP/M BIOS to the IMSAI 8080
http://www.imsai.net/history/imsai_history/cp-m_history.htm
The ROM of a CP/M machine typically contained little more than a boot loader (and often a machine monitor), no BIOS. So, the vendor specific CP/M BIOS was developed by the OEM and loaded from disk. (CP/M BIOS example and template source code was typically provided by Digital Research.) The CP/M BDOS was completely machine indepedant and typically not provided as source code.
With the advent of the IBM PC in 1981, the BIOS became two parts, an operating system independant and an operating system dependant part. (They were not modelled after a CP/M BIOS, though.) The first is what makes up the ROM-BIOS (or System BIOS) of the PC, the second is the so called DOS-BIOS typically residing in a file named IBMBIO.COM, IO.SYS or DRBIOS.SYS.
MS-DOS/PC DOS had a BDOS as well, but Microsoft just named it differently, "DOS" kernel. This is what makes up IBMDOS.COM aka MSDOS.SYS. DR DOS continued to visibly use the BDOS designation (DRBDOS.SYS) up until 1989, but the internal kernel is still called BDOS up to today and the corresponding kernel version API still reports a BDOS version (which is different from the API emulation version).
In Digital Research terminology, the part of the BIOS and/or OS residing in ROM was also called ROS (either for Resident OS or for ROM OS, I'm not sure about that right now).
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following line: As such, the BIOS was relegated to bootstrapping, at which point the operating system's own drivers can take control of the hardware.
This is misleading at best and I can not see an argument that it might be acurate. BIOS still does everything it use to do for DOS (you will notice you can still boot DOS) AND it provides ACPI for any contemporary MP OS. A key part of ACPI is the ASL/AML which is in fact a driver the OS uses all of the time. As evidence that BIOS is far more than just a little chunk of bootstrapping code, you must compare BIOSes of today with BIOes of yesteryear. In 1998, the largest you would see a BIOS would be 256kb - that was big in fact. Today, BIOS is usually at least 1mb in size and 4mb is not uncommon. This is a huge degree of additional funtionality squeezed in - with no functionality removed.
Additionally, you will see every x86 based computer manufacturer that supports windows license its BIOS from a BIOS vendor. Many of these companies have enough resources to write and maintain their own OS, but they have to buy the BIOS - to be competitive. Finally, free alternatives - U-Boot (an actual bootloader only for bootstapping) and OpenFirmware have made no significant impact on the BIOS "industry". This only makes financial sense if the BIOS is providing critical functionality that is difficult to maintain.
--
Riluve (
talk)
20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
So sup, stupid question; a lot of people are calling the firmwares in a lot of stuff "BIOS", not just the PC; do we have any official source for this or is it just a case of people not having a clue, and on which page should the addition be done? Correcting the mistake at articles like PS2 or making a mention of the popular usage/synecdoche of the word BIOS to refer to firmwares in general... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.250.142 ( talk) 11:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears the authors of this article know nothing of other computers other than PCs. They might be startled to learn that virtually all computers have a BIOS of some sort. Even the venerable Commodore PET had one. Really lousy article!
Bigdumbdinosaur ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The link to INT appears to be incorrect. The author was probably referring to the CPU 'interrupt' instruction. ( Example interrupt table.) -- Bobbymcr 15:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes made to the article by 217.43.173.223. Moron. 68.9.205.10 03:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BIOS is also the Greek word for "life".
Pulled this paragraph. I was going to stick this on its own page and link it with a disambig message, but on second though I don't think this is really notable enough to bother.
I'm recording this here anyway, just in case someone does think it is notable. AlistairMcMillan 03:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
All microprocessor-based systems have the equivalent of the BIOS (some non-PC examples - mainframe computers, Tivo, television set-top boxes, network routers). But BIOS is an IBM Personal Computer term. I believe more generic terms are boot rom, boot monitor, boot loader. This article ought to be say that the name BIOS is for PCs. The article booting is a more generic introduction to this subject. Dyl 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh - I would say no not at all. The BIOS as introduced on the original PC provided system analysis, configuration, boot strapping AND an OS/Hardware interface. Most mainframes have different facilities for doing these things - that is, the main frame equivalent would really ONLY do a bootstrap. On mosy mainframes, system analysis is done by a 3rd agent - diagnostic software, configuration is done with direct hardware manipulation, and the OS is writen specifically for the computer in question and doesn't require the abstraction layer of the PC BIOS.
Older routers may have a bootstrap and Hardware Abstraction layer, but the actual need is more dependant upon the OS being used and not the hardware as suggested by the assertion that all micro-procprocessor based systems have the equivalent of the BIOS. It would be relatively simple (and is basically common) to create an OS that performs all fundamental BIOS operations completely to increase efficiency. So there definately is no "need" for a BIOS.
Additionally, most set-top boxes and contemporary routers actually have a full blown BIOS inside not disimilar to a desktop BIOS, but usually with the ability to enter BIOS configuration disabled or secured. This is especially attractive when the OS in question would like to make use of an industry standard interface such as ACPI or SMBIOS.
Well, in summary, like I said in length - no.
-- Riluve 06:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a little redundant? I mean, if I can break one bios, I can just as easily break the other three. I could understand two in case one is wiped out, but a quad bios sounds excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.80.217 ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
I can't find *any* references for the claim that the page makes that BIOS stands for "Binary Input/Output System." Even the disambiguation page for BIOS identifies it as "Basic Input/Output System." All the articles we link to off of the page call it a Basic Input/Output System as well. Unless someone can come up with a concrete reference that somehow "disproves" what is clearly the majority opinion on this issue, it seems to me the article needed to be edited. Arathon 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we supposed to be prescriptive or descriptive? I've always pronounced BIOS as baɪɑs, and many people around me do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubern00b ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a little chapter about this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.15.165 ( talk) 11:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Built-in "CMOS" setup screens pre-date the '386; ATs had "reference diskettes" but most other 286 clones had a setup utility. Need to show progression: an AT BIOS did characters in and out, and disks. Then things like power management were added. What are all the services a modern BIOS must have in it? I have the 1997 Microsoft book that describes "what is a Wintel PC" but a later take would also be useful. I've got rid of a lot of repetition and tried to organize the article. There's a lot more to add, based on the Mueller and Rosch chapters on BIOS. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The article reads; "
Some BIOSes contain a "SLIC" (software licensing description table), ...."
Not I can understand how the "S" is for "software" and the "L" is for "licensing" but how do you get "I" and "C" meaning "desciption table" !? What does the I and C STAND FOR IN THE ABREVIATION ? That would be the first (if not only) definition we need. Thanks BrianAlex ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The comment about user interface needs to be clarified. The original IBM PC definitely had BIOS calls for a text-based UI. Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I was researching on the net, and I found bunch of stuff that says that the BIOS is also used to simply talk to the hard drive.
That is: Beyond it's use as a boot device, it also hosts code that is used to read and write data to and from the disk.
I am not an expert at computer hardware, so I hesitate to edit the article.
But if this is true, or even if it was just historically true, I think that the article should mention this kind of thing.
It should perhaps say something like, "Historically, the BIOS was used for low-level disk drive access. The operating system running on the CPU didn't directly talk with the disk drive; instead, it would send signals to the BIOS by way of interrupts, and the BIOS would then perform the low-level disk drive manipulations."
That said: Maybe this is still true! I really don't know how it works. I turned to this article for help, but it seems to be purely about bootstrapping the system.
I see that there is a wikipedia page BIOS interrupt call, but I think it should be worked into the article, rather than just left as a link at the bottom. Just reading the BIOS page and not following the links at the end, it appears that the BIOS is purely for bootstrapping.
Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a computer technician from the UK, and I have never heard BIOS pronounced where the O sounds like the O in boat. Here the O sounds like the O in gloss. Is the pronunciation mentioned in the article North American?-- Jcvamp ( talk) 10:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions a BIOS attack revealed in CBS 60 Minutes. The Guardian, however, disputes such an attack ever existed: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts Should a note be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.86.180 ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was reading this;
in an attempt to fully understand what SLIC meant. Wouldn't this be "SLDT"? So What does The "IC" in "SLIC" actually Stand for? It seems that one should know what abbreviations stand for, or am I just old fashioned? Thanks-BA — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of this article is ancient history, with info on the operating systems of the 80s and 90s. Maybe the out-of-date material should be removed or relegated to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.135 ( talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. The material now primarily deals with the same subject matter, with alternatives and successors presented afterwards, rather than jumping around and going off on tangents at random. I've also removed a large amount of redundancy caused by that jumping around (as the article had to continually re-state things when getting back on track). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Boot block |
DMI block |
Main block |
Windows XP and newer, do not allow user-mode programs including applications with administrative privileges to have direct hardware access. so how a modern CIH-like virus could in principle still gain access to hardware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-G ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BIOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I felt the lead was missing some important observations. My additions have made the lead even more top-heavy than before. Clearly the lead needs a refactor. It is my hope that the next editor to come along will immediately spot the necessary liposuction targets, and proceed accordingly. — MaxEnt 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BIOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The /ˈbaɪɒs/ pronunciation the article gives is how I've always pronounced BIOS, but recently I've come across the pronunciation /ˈbaɪoʊs/—for example, in a Linux Tech Tips video and this, but also in real life. Should the article include such a pronunciation (or any pronunciation at all, given there's no source for the pronunciation given)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We should have a section listing different BIOS'es. I know it's very different from computer to computer, but if we start a list, i'm sure it'll grow pretty fast. It would be very handy to alot of people. Maybe this site will help with the initial list.
@ 2006-12-01T13:28Z
I removed the initial text saying that BIOS is exclusive to IBM/Intel computers. The BIOS function is to bootstrap the hardware and optionally test functionality prior to an operating system being launched. It is a part of all computer systems not just IBM PC's which simply have the most configurable and user accessible BIOS functions.
Apple ][, Early Sun, and other RISC systems have hard coded routines stored on field replaceable chips to perform these functions some of which predate or were concurrently created with IBM's version, which seems to be heavily preferred in this entry contrary to the goals of the computing sub group. The generic function with implementation specific entries is what this topic should cover. The Full entry states that the BIOS functionality pre-dated IBM's use for the PC . The Synopsis should not contradict that information. RowanHawkins 22:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhawkin ( talk • contribs)
Saying that the "BIOS function is to bootstrap the hardware and optionally test functionality prior to an operating system being launched" implies that that is its primary purpose but it is not. The part (currently) in the article saying "the BIOS provided a hardware abstraction layer" is close to the primary purpose of the BIOS. The BIOS has functions that can be called by the operating system or by applications to do basic I/O. The part that most of this article describes is called the Power-On Self-Test (POST). I am not sure whether the POST is officially considered part of the BIOS.
As for systems having code in permanent memory to cause the system to boot from external storage, sure, that has been how computers worked since 1964 and I assume a decade before that. The IBM System/360 released in 1964 had a "bootstrap process (a process called Initial Program Load or IPL)". The question is, were anything like that called a Basic Input/Output System? And note that as I said, the main purpose of the BIOS is not to perform and initial program load, it is to provide functions for use after the system has initiated. Sam Tomato ( talk) 22:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
So, to call the the I/O subroutines, the POST, and boot loader collectively the BIOS is ignoring a great deal of history in favor of PC centrism. Joe Avins ( talk) 20:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This (uncited) second paragraph of the User Interface section makes some pretty sweeping generalizations that strike me as pretty out of date.
A modern Wintel-compatible computer provides a setup routine essentially unchanged in nature from the ROM-resident BIOS setup utilities of the late 1990s; the user can configure hardware options using the keyboard and video display. Also, when errors occur at boot time, a modern BIOS usually displays user-friendly error messages, often presented as pop-up boxes in a TUI style, and offers to enter the BIOS setup utility or to ignore the error and proceed if possible. Instead of battery-backed RAM, the modern Wintel machine may store the BIOS configuration settings in flash ROM, perhaps the same flash ROM that holds the BIOS itself.
While it's true that some systems, maybe even many systems, still provide a text- or character-art-based interface reminiscent of the Award/Phoenix BIOS utilities of decades ago, I've also seen other systems that could not be more of a departure. There are UEFI setup interfaces out there that bear more resemblance to Windows (well... Windows 95, maybe) than to the traditional BIOS screen, including a full GUI and mouse support. Sweeping generalizations like these have a way of showing their age and/or their ignorance. -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 05:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
IBM published the full assembler source code for the PC/AT BIOS in their "Technical Reference Personal Computer AT" (1984). I don't understand why BIOS programmers would have needed to reverse engineer it, if indeed they did.
106.69.141.20 ( talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Most people think that the main purpose of the BIOS is to boot the system. If that were so then it would have been called something like Basic Boot System. The main purpose of the BIOS is to provide basic IO but that is (currently) mentioned in this article as being secondary to booting. I suppose I will try editing the article accordingly. Sam Tomato ( talk) 03:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is "While the name BIOS is an acronym, it is also a play on the Greek word βιος (bios) life. " intentional, or not? Dysprosia 08:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thats not NPOV1
Read-Only Memory (ROM) chips are much slower to read than Random Access Memory (RAM). True. See later.
The storage capability of a ROM is also an issue, computer programs placed in ROM must be small and limited in features. In addition, BIOS code is a guarded trade secret, and the handful of vendors are often obfuscated their BIOS code to protect it from reverse-engineering. As technology advances, the features and functionalities built into the BIOS code begin to remove most of the limitations, or provide a workaround for them.
Most systems these days copy the BIOS code from the slow ROM into the faster RAM. Known as shadow RAM... done to speed up the BIOS routines.
The latest BIOS code support Plug and Play hardware components and Operating Systems, making system configuration much easier. Also, more and more manufacturer's license BIOS technology and optimize it to work with their components or systems.
My main reservation about the bits I cut out are: a) It views BIOS just a the PC BIOS everyone initially thinks of b) I'm not sure of its NPOV c) BIOS'es (in the PC ROM sense) are more like bootstrap roms than anything else, as most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore.
Made several additions based on coding BIOSs for Phoenix Technologies. Though most people today equate BIOS = firmware = PC BIOS = boot, the first time I saw the term 'BIOS' was in 1981 source code from IBM's Technical Reference Manual. Thus, BIOS may be specific to the IBM PC, though it's meaning may have expanded in the last 20 years. Robert Keller
I think this requires some additional thought or clarification. "most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore". That is, apparently you mean to say they don't use the DOS compatible BIOS routines, but they do. Also they use ASL routines which are provided by the BIOS - maybe this is a grey area though. On the first point, they still use the DOS BIOS routines for booting (INT 10, INT13, etc). Maybe you just mean the kernel doesn't use these routines anymore - on that we would basically agree.
On the second point, ASL/AML, it can be a grey area because there is a semi-valid argument that they are or are not BIOS routines. In my mind, they are provided by a BIOS vendor and written by a BIOS engineer and they express the same old BIOS functionality in a more modern way - they are BIOS routines. Of course, you could argue that a BIOS routine has to be DOS compatible or its not BIOS. I would counter that argument in that it is dated and unrealistic and in reality a DOS limitation and not a BIOS limitation.
--
Riluve (
talk)
20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we please get some mention of the new EFI BIOS? -Unsigned I started an Extensible_Firmware_Interface like 4-5 years ago. Of course there is nothing left of what I started :-( -- Riluve ( talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole BBS section needs to go. Its more of a suggestion than a specification. As far as I know the "BBS API" is just the PnP and PCI config space which the BBS suggests a BIOS read to get device information. Granted, its been 5 years since I read this "specification", but it was no specification the last time I saw it. It pointed out issues and problems but didn't have hard-line solutions for most of them. Furthermore, the issues it did try to solve, if implemented, no one would use/buy the result. Has there been an update since the original? If so, I haven't seen it. In short, BBS should not be taken seriously.
Some comments about the article: “which at a minimum drives the keyboard and provides primitive output to a display. ” This is incorrect. There is no need for keyboard support and the output to a display is misleading (especially on the primitive note). For example, A server BIOS has no need for keyboard support and for USB keyboard, the BIOS needs only to support USB HID’s and not act as a driver for the KBC. Rather, at a minimum, the BIOS initializes memory and programs the memory controller. Also, it discovers and initializes buses on the system (be it PCI, ISA, PCI-E or whatnot).
As for the primitive output display – it seems this “primitive” aspect should be something more about ASCII which could be on a local display or sent out say a serial port to a remote display. In the latter case, the display function, strictly speaking, is not supported. Maybe it would be better to say it would support ASCII console (at a minimum). That could be local or remote.
“most modern BIOS implementations” I would say all BIOSes are modern, maybe contemporary would put a finer point on it.
“My main reservation about the bits I cut out are: a) It views BIOS just a the PC BIOS everyone initially thinks of b) I'm not sure of its NPOV c) BIOS'es (in the PC ROM sense) are more like bootstrap roms than anything else, as most OS'es don't even use low level BIOS routines anymore.”
I am not sure what this is referencing, but it has an inaccurate characterization in it. That is to say, sure contemporary OSes no longer use the runtime services provided by the BIOS, but they are still provided. It is still a useful thing to be able to boot to DOS. If we are talking about this stuff, then it seems fair to mention ACPI as well.
As to EFI, I can draft up something if you would like. It is going to be the new PC standard. Starting with longhorn, and theoretically afterwards the only MS supported firmware interface. There are some introductory things about it on Intels website.
LMAO - ok see, this looks like me, I guess I can get a little crazy sometimes. It must be dusty on this talk page. No one cares about BIOS? -- Riluve ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the image of a BIOS on a payphone is not good enough for this article. It could be replaced by a screenshot (probably taken with a camera), clear, sharp, glare-free and only showing the BIOS screen (not the border of the monitor for example). An exact reproduction would be good as well. -- Bernard François 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a better picrure: http://deepthought.ena.si/logo/bios/award.png - AWARD BIOS
http://www.ellak.gr/pub/OpenGuides/Debian/pics/app1/bios.png - PhoenixBIOS
or http://cdn.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/AppuntiLinux/immagini/bios-borg/ - many "screenshots"
Here's another one, made by me. Not an actual screenshot; I made it by extracting the OEM font from my video ROM and "drawing" the setup screen manually, with some help from self-written scripts. This is exactly, scanline for scanline, what appears on my screen when I enter BIOS setup (well, the palette may be a bit off. And yes, it is 10 years old - and still works!). You may replace File:AwardBIOS_CMOS_Setup_Utility.png with this, I don't claim any copyright on it (well, per Bridgeman v. Corel I actually can't claim it in the US). Why won't I simply register and do it myself? Good question. Well, I'm planning to, but for now I'd like to remain quasi-anonymous. Ian ( 77.254.8.139 ( talk) 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC))
The BIOS is located on address FFFF:0000 ? --
Frap
12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No
--
Riluve (
talk)
21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You may add information what is BIOS Release Number and BIOS Reference Number. Cya Jerry -- 195.113.141.199 ( talk) 09:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As it's long been a source of confusion, with little discussion had, I've amended the article to define BIOS specifically as the PC (IBM PC Compatible/IBM AT+/PC97+) firmware which provides the well known Interrupt interface found in the original IBM PC, that is well documented in Ralf Browns Interrupt list and appended to by BIOS manufacturers. While this leaves Wikipedia without an article, or at least information (could be added to the firmware article?) on boot firmware, or at least upon basic system ROM as opposed to generic firmware. The other issue lays in actually expressing the definition. I've currently used the term "de facto standard", however technically that's incorrect. The BIOS is a term that relates to every implementation of a BIOS that is built up on the original system, as a whole, but is compromised from numerous sources, some with specifications and not all implementations supporting all the functionality. Can anyone word the introduction to express this idea succinctly? I will work on it, but I'm sure someone far more adapt than me could do it first, and best. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I am thinking, but it needs better writing, so I wouldn't want to add it to the article now.
In computing, the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) [1] , also known as the System BIOS, refers to a component in IBM PC Compatible computers, based upon the original IBM PC firmware, and numerous continuing developments, that is an implementation specific system based upon a de facto standard boot firmware interface. [2]
Basically we need to word the development as a diverse production, with features constantly being borrowed and merged into an unmaintained standardisation. In the same way that E820 was brought from implementation into de facto status, or that the EDD specification was implemented across the board. Any issues? - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Last sentence points to dd, which is useless for accessing BIOS chips. I've changed dd to flashrom, which is the right UNIX utility for this, but it got reverted by user Wtshymanski. I disagree both with that revert, and with mentioning dd in this context. -- Cghost ( talk) 13:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If the BIOS has moved to buses such as SPI, how can the CPU still easily boot from a hardwired address such as CS:IP FFFF:0000 (see Booting#Boot_sequence_on_standard_PC_.28IBM-PC_compatible.29)? -- Abdull ( talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly replace generated image with real hardware version? http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3301/realhw.jpg I made it myself Smeezekitty ( talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A bit of redundancy can increase clarity. e.g. CD-ROM Disc (Compact Disc Read Only Memory Disc), DVD Video (Digital Versatile/Video Disc Video), SAT Test (Standardized Achievment Test Test), and BIOS System (Basic Input-Output System System).
Can the article retain "BIOS systems"? - Brewthatistrue 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
Just in reading the first two paragraphs, this article states incorrectly what BIOS is. Just want to share what I know; no time to do any serious editing on this article. First of all, BIOS is not a boot loader. BIOS includes a boot loader, but it is less than 5% of BIOS. BIOS also is not designed to load an operating system and then be forgotten. As the IBM Technical Reference manuals for the various PC-family machines, which originally defined the BIOS, clearly indicate, the BIOS is designed to be a low-level hardware abstraction layer, and IBM recommends (originally) its universal use. So, in other words, the BIOS is the earlier counterpart to things like the Windows API, which Windows requires all programs to use for hardware access, prohibiting (and preventing, as it can) direct manipulation of the hardware. The second paragraph goes on to say that the primary purpose of BIOS is to initialize hardware devices into some known minimal operative state and then. That may be the perspective of the programmers of large, ultra-sophisticated modern operating systems, but it is not objectively the purpose of BIOS. BIOS does not initialize devices so that other programs can directly manipulate them afterward, although it does allow for that in some cases (notably video display devices and serial UARTs). BIOS initializes devices so that it can provide services using them. BIOS is designed to allow other programs to go around it and even to essentially wipe out its control and capacity after its initialization is done, but this is largely because it is an Intel x86 real mode program (or, depending on perspective, a collection of programs) and there is no protection in real mode to prevent this; a program running in real mode essentially owns the machine, until it hands it back nicely to its caller. (It's sort of like renting your house to someone while you go on vacation--it's up to their good behavior to preserve your house the way you expect for when you get it back.) All operating systems that run purely in protected mode abandon BIOS, since they can't call it without switching to real mode. Therefore, for those operating systems, the only useful effect of BIOS is to initialize devices and perform the initial stage of booting. That BIOS is usually used that way today doesn't make that all that BIOS is.
I don't know much about the few "alternatives for Legacy BIOS in the x86 world" today, but I suspect they may be more focused on just initializing those devices necessary for booting (i.e. keyboard input, basic video, disk drives, and network adapters) than supporting every device in the machine through a standard interface. That is what BIOS aims to do, whether or not it is used by modern programs. Old programs (anything under DOS) still relies on it, and so DOS emulators must either thunk BIOS calls (through to real mode) or emulate BIOS completely.
The third paragraph is better, touching on this basic concept. However, it is not something else that BIOS "can be said" to be. The correct description of BIOS is that this is what it is, although that is how it's most often actually used in modern times. Feel free to use any phrases, sentences, or other parts of this message to improve the article.
People also commonly use the term BIOS to refer to CMOS Setup, or, more generally, a system configuration program in ROM, using sentences like "You have to enable the second IDE channel in BIOS." The BIOS is what primarily uses these settings, but the setup program is not BIOS, it is a program that configures BIOS and may, at most, be considered a small portion of BIOS. However, this usage is common in colloquial speech, and so we must acknowledge that it has come to be a second meaning of the word--BIOS is either the actual BIOS or the BIOS Setup Utility (program.)
I have a strong opinion on this subject, I admit. If anyone thinks I'm off base and wants to argue another position, please do so politely. I'm not attacking anyone, only some ideas; let's keep it that way. (I may not get back here to read it, but hopefully this will still start a discussion.)
Another problem is that the article text makes no mention of POST, which is the only operation of BIOS, other than the brief action of the boot loader, that is actually visible to the user and takes observable time.
71.242.27.236 ( talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, this article is mostly bollocks. Out of the 20+ BIOSes I've encountered in the last few decades, only about 4 of them have fitted within the bounds of this article. This is an article on *PC* BIOSes primarily. Almost nothing in the article applies to any BIOS that's ever run on any Alpha-, Sparc-, ARM-, or POWER-based machine I've ever used. (And probably the MIPS and HPPA ones too, but I never touched the BIOSes on those, so can't be sure). Everyone who's contributed to this article should feel ashamed of the depth of their ignorance, this is possibly one of the poorest quality wikipedia articles I've ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.183.129 ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source to show that it actually refers to BIOS as in Basic I/O System Built in Operating System? I've only ever heard the term used for the double meaning in relation to Operating System's built into firmware, and not to actual BIOS'. -
Jimmi Hugh (
talk)
22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
|[...] | |/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) | | COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL | JUNE, 1975 | | */ | |[...] | |/* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) | | COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL | JUNE, 1975 | | */ | |[...]
At this time, BIOS and BDOS were already logically seperate modules inside the same source code. The physical separation of the BIOS and the BDOS came somewhat later in 1975-1977 with CP/M 1.3 and 1.4, also inspired by input of Glenn Ewing, a developer at IMSAI, who adapted the CP/M BIOS to the IMSAI 8080
http://www.imsai.net/history/imsai_history/cp-m_history.htm
The ROM of a CP/M machine typically contained little more than a boot loader (and often a machine monitor), no BIOS. So, the vendor specific CP/M BIOS was developed by the OEM and loaded from disk. (CP/M BIOS example and template source code was typically provided by Digital Research.) The CP/M BDOS was completely machine indepedant and typically not provided as source code.
With the advent of the IBM PC in 1981, the BIOS became two parts, an operating system independant and an operating system dependant part. (They were not modelled after a CP/M BIOS, though.) The first is what makes up the ROM-BIOS (or System BIOS) of the PC, the second is the so called DOS-BIOS typically residing in a file named IBMBIO.COM, IO.SYS or DRBIOS.SYS.
MS-DOS/PC DOS had a BDOS as well, but Microsoft just named it differently, "DOS" kernel. This is what makes up IBMDOS.COM aka MSDOS.SYS. DR DOS continued to visibly use the BDOS designation (DRBDOS.SYS) up until 1989, but the internal kernel is still called BDOS up to today and the corresponding kernel version API still reports a BDOS version (which is different from the API emulation version).
In Digital Research terminology, the part of the BIOS and/or OS residing in ROM was also called ROS (either for Resident OS or for ROM OS, I'm not sure about that right now).
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following line: As such, the BIOS was relegated to bootstrapping, at which point the operating system's own drivers can take control of the hardware.
This is misleading at best and I can not see an argument that it might be acurate. BIOS still does everything it use to do for DOS (you will notice you can still boot DOS) AND it provides ACPI for any contemporary MP OS. A key part of ACPI is the ASL/AML which is in fact a driver the OS uses all of the time. As evidence that BIOS is far more than just a little chunk of bootstrapping code, you must compare BIOSes of today with BIOes of yesteryear. In 1998, the largest you would see a BIOS would be 256kb - that was big in fact. Today, BIOS is usually at least 1mb in size and 4mb is not uncommon. This is a huge degree of additional funtionality squeezed in - with no functionality removed.
Additionally, you will see every x86 based computer manufacturer that supports windows license its BIOS from a BIOS vendor. Many of these companies have enough resources to write and maintain their own OS, but they have to buy the BIOS - to be competitive. Finally, free alternatives - U-Boot (an actual bootloader only for bootstapping) and OpenFirmware have made no significant impact on the BIOS "industry". This only makes financial sense if the BIOS is providing critical functionality that is difficult to maintain.
--
Riluve (
talk)
20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
So sup, stupid question; a lot of people are calling the firmwares in a lot of stuff "BIOS", not just the PC; do we have any official source for this or is it just a case of people not having a clue, and on which page should the addition be done? Correcting the mistake at articles like PS2 or making a mention of the popular usage/synecdoche of the word BIOS to refer to firmwares in general... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.250.142 ( talk) 11:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears the authors of this article know nothing of other computers other than PCs. They might be startled to learn that virtually all computers have a BIOS of some sort. Even the venerable Commodore PET had one. Really lousy article!
Bigdumbdinosaur ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The link to INT appears to be incorrect. The author was probably referring to the CPU 'interrupt' instruction. ( Example interrupt table.) -- Bobbymcr 15:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the changes made to the article by 217.43.173.223. Moron. 68.9.205.10 03:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BIOS is also the Greek word for "life".
Pulled this paragraph. I was going to stick this on its own page and link it with a disambig message, but on second though I don't think this is really notable enough to bother.
I'm recording this here anyway, just in case someone does think it is notable. AlistairMcMillan 03:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
All microprocessor-based systems have the equivalent of the BIOS (some non-PC examples - mainframe computers, Tivo, television set-top boxes, network routers). But BIOS is an IBM Personal Computer term. I believe more generic terms are boot rom, boot monitor, boot loader. This article ought to be say that the name BIOS is for PCs. The article booting is a more generic introduction to this subject. Dyl 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh - I would say no not at all. The BIOS as introduced on the original PC provided system analysis, configuration, boot strapping AND an OS/Hardware interface. Most mainframes have different facilities for doing these things - that is, the main frame equivalent would really ONLY do a bootstrap. On mosy mainframes, system analysis is done by a 3rd agent - diagnostic software, configuration is done with direct hardware manipulation, and the OS is writen specifically for the computer in question and doesn't require the abstraction layer of the PC BIOS.
Older routers may have a bootstrap and Hardware Abstraction layer, but the actual need is more dependant upon the OS being used and not the hardware as suggested by the assertion that all micro-procprocessor based systems have the equivalent of the BIOS. It would be relatively simple (and is basically common) to create an OS that performs all fundamental BIOS operations completely to increase efficiency. So there definately is no "need" for a BIOS.
Additionally, most set-top boxes and contemporary routers actually have a full blown BIOS inside not disimilar to a desktop BIOS, but usually with the ability to enter BIOS configuration disabled or secured. This is especially attractive when the OS in question would like to make use of an industry standard interface such as ACPI or SMBIOS.
Well, in summary, like I said in length - no.
-- Riluve 06:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a little redundant? I mean, if I can break one bios, I can just as easily break the other three. I could understand two in case one is wiped out, but a quad bios sounds excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.80.217 ( talk) 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
I can't find *any* references for the claim that the page makes that BIOS stands for "Binary Input/Output System." Even the disambiguation page for BIOS identifies it as "Basic Input/Output System." All the articles we link to off of the page call it a Basic Input/Output System as well. Unless someone can come up with a concrete reference that somehow "disproves" what is clearly the majority opinion on this issue, it seems to me the article needed to be edited. Arathon 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we supposed to be prescriptive or descriptive? I've always pronounced BIOS as baɪɑs, and many people around me do as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubern00b ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a little chapter about this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.15.165 ( talk) 11:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Built-in "CMOS" setup screens pre-date the '386; ATs had "reference diskettes" but most other 286 clones had a setup utility. Need to show progression: an AT BIOS did characters in and out, and disks. Then things like power management were added. What are all the services a modern BIOS must have in it? I have the 1997 Microsoft book that describes "what is a Wintel PC" but a later take would also be useful. I've got rid of a lot of repetition and tried to organize the article. There's a lot more to add, based on the Mueller and Rosch chapters on BIOS. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The article reads; "
Some BIOSes contain a "SLIC" (software licensing description table), ...."
Not I can understand how the "S" is for "software" and the "L" is for "licensing" but how do you get "I" and "C" meaning "desciption table" !? What does the I and C STAND FOR IN THE ABREVIATION ? That would be the first (if not only) definition we need. Thanks BrianAlex ( talk) 02:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The comment about user interface needs to be clarified. The original IBM PC definitely had BIOS calls for a text-based UI. Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I was researching on the net, and I found bunch of stuff that says that the BIOS is also used to simply talk to the hard drive.
That is: Beyond it's use as a boot device, it also hosts code that is used to read and write data to and from the disk.
I am not an expert at computer hardware, so I hesitate to edit the article.
But if this is true, or even if it was just historically true, I think that the article should mention this kind of thing.
It should perhaps say something like, "Historically, the BIOS was used for low-level disk drive access. The operating system running on the CPU didn't directly talk with the disk drive; instead, it would send signals to the BIOS by way of interrupts, and the BIOS would then perform the low-level disk drive manipulations."
That said: Maybe this is still true! I really don't know how it works. I turned to this article for help, but it seems to be purely about bootstrapping the system.
I see that there is a wikipedia page BIOS interrupt call, but I think it should be worked into the article, rather than just left as a link at the bottom. Just reading the BIOS page and not following the links at the end, it appears that the BIOS is purely for bootstrapping.
Sam Tomato ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a computer technician from the UK, and I have never heard BIOS pronounced where the O sounds like the O in boat. Here the O sounds like the O in gloss. Is the pronunciation mentioned in the article North American?-- Jcvamp ( talk) 10:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions a BIOS attack revealed in CBS 60 Minutes. The Guardian, however, disputes such an attack ever existed: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts Should a note be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.86.180 ( talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was reading this;
in an attempt to fully understand what SLIC meant. Wouldn't this be "SLDT"? So What does The "IC" in "SLIC" actually Stand for? It seems that one should know what abbreviations stand for, or am I just old fashioned? Thanks-BA — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of this article is ancient history, with info on the operating systems of the 80s and 90s. Maybe the out-of-date material should be removed or relegated to its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.135 ( talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. The material now primarily deals with the same subject matter, with alternatives and successors presented afterwards, rather than jumping around and going off on tangents at random. I've also removed a large amount of redundancy caused by that jumping around (as the article had to continually re-state things when getting back on track). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Boot block |
DMI block |
Main block |
Windows XP and newer, do not allow user-mode programs including applications with administrative privileges to have direct hardware access. so how a modern CIH-like virus could in principle still gain access to hardware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-G ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BIOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I felt the lead was missing some important observations. My additions have made the lead even more top-heavy than before. Clearly the lead needs a refactor. It is my hope that the next editor to come along will immediately spot the necessary liposuction targets, and proceed accordingly. — MaxEnt 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BIOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The /ˈbaɪɒs/ pronunciation the article gives is how I've always pronounced BIOS, but recently I've come across the pronunciation /ˈbaɪoʊs/—for example, in a Linux Tech Tips video and this, but also in real life. Should the article include such a pronunciation (or any pronunciation at all, given there's no source for the pronunciation given)? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We should have a section listing different BIOS'es. I know it's very different from computer to computer, but if we start a list, i'm sure it'll grow pretty fast. It would be very handy to alot of people. Maybe this site will help with the initial list.
@ 2006-12-01T13:28Z
I removed the initial text saying that BIOS is exclusive to IBM/Intel computers. The BIOS function is to bootstrap the hardware and optionally test functionality prior to an operating system being launched. It is a part of all computer systems not just IBM PC's which simply have the most configurable and user accessible BIOS functions.
Apple ][, Early Sun, and other RISC systems have hard coded routines stored on field replaceable chips to perform these functions some of which predate or were concurrently created with IBM's version, which seems to be heavily preferred in this entry contrary to the goals of the computing sub group. The generic function with implementation specific entries is what this topic should cover. The Full entry states that the BIOS functionality pre-dated IBM's use for the PC . The Synopsis should not contradict that information. RowanHawkins 22:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhawkin ( talk • contribs)
Saying that the "BIOS function is to bootstrap the hardware and optionally test functionality prior to an operating system being launched" implies that that is its primary purpose but it is not. The part (currently) in the article saying "the BIOS provided a hardware abstraction layer" is close to the primary purpose of the BIOS. The BIOS has functions that can be called by the operating system or by applications to do basic I/O. The part that most of this article describes is called the Power-On Self-Test (POST). I am not sure whether the POST is officially considered part of the BIOS.
As for systems having code in permanent memory to cause the system to boot from external storage, sure, that has been how computers worked since 1964 and I assume a decade before that. The IBM System/360 released in 1964 had a "bootstrap process (a process called Initial Program Load or IPL)". The question is, were anything like that called a Basic Input/Output System? And note that as I said, the main purpose of the BIOS is not to perform and initial program load, it is to provide functions for use after the system has initiated. Sam Tomato ( talk) 22:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
So, to call the the I/O subroutines, the POST, and boot loader collectively the BIOS is ignoring a great deal of history in favor of PC centrism. Joe Avins ( talk) 20:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This (uncited) second paragraph of the User Interface section makes some pretty sweeping generalizations that strike me as pretty out of date.
A modern Wintel-compatible computer provides a setup routine essentially unchanged in nature from the ROM-resident BIOS setup utilities of the late 1990s; the user can configure hardware options using the keyboard and video display. Also, when errors occur at boot time, a modern BIOS usually displays user-friendly error messages, often presented as pop-up boxes in a TUI style, and offers to enter the BIOS setup utility or to ignore the error and proceed if possible. Instead of battery-backed RAM, the modern Wintel machine may store the BIOS configuration settings in flash ROM, perhaps the same flash ROM that holds the BIOS itself.
While it's true that some systems, maybe even many systems, still provide a text- or character-art-based interface reminiscent of the Award/Phoenix BIOS utilities of decades ago, I've also seen other systems that could not be more of a departure. There are UEFI setup interfaces out there that bear more resemblance to Windows (well... Windows 95, maybe) than to the traditional BIOS screen, including a full GUI and mouse support. Sweeping generalizations like these have a way of showing their age and/or their ignorance. -- FeRDNYC ( talk) 05:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
IBM published the full assembler source code for the PC/AT BIOS in their "Technical Reference Personal Computer AT" (1984). I don't understand why BIOS programmers would have needed to reverse engineer it, if indeed they did.
106.69.141.20 ( talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Most people think that the main purpose of the BIOS is to boot the system. If that were so then it would have been called something like Basic Boot System. The main purpose of the BIOS is to provide basic IO but that is (currently) mentioned in this article as being secondary to booting. I suppose I will try editing the article accordingly. Sam Tomato ( talk) 03:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)