UEFI or Legacy?

Depends.

I would go for UEFI since everything spies on you anyways, who gives a shit

>>61285332
UEFI, including GPT, on all-new hardware, when possible. Otherwise it's not worth the effort to switch.

>>61285332
Neither

Uefi if it's a decent implementation

>>61285332
UEFI is botnet, literally, but if your motherboard supports UEFI, there's no difference between BIOS and regular boot.

>>61285332
How can I make sure I my new motherboard will NOT have UEFI? My current one is 5+ years old and I don't want any of that shit in the new one.

>>61285716
i don't think you have the option of not having the uefi cancer on new motherboard

this shit is so fucking retarded, even beyond the spying

>>61285716
You don't have an option.
I recently went through the same thing.

>>61285716
Why is UEFI a botnet?

>>61285790
>>61285821
I fucking hate today's tech. It peaked some time in late 00s and now it's in a nosedive thorough Mariana's trench of cancer and shit. I'm praying for a global tech extinction event, a cosmic-scale EMP to fuck everything up so we can start over.

That said, is there any way to scrub, disable, or at least entirely neuter UEFI on a new board? Like zero it out with a custom update patch leaving only a pointer to BIOS or something?

>>61285851
Bls resbond

>>61285851
>>61286103
Install Gentoo, you'll find out

>tfw you still don't know what UEFI is and have no idea if you're running it or not because you've always been a poorfag with ancient hardware and after building a decent PC you try not to break anything by messing with it

>>61285332

UEFI

>>61285332
>ITT freetards scared of a fucking BIOS

>>61285877
https://www.coreboot.org

>>61286353
UEFI is slow and it shouldn't be allowed to survive.
We are at a point where the bios is much slower than booting the OS.
Desktop computers are now slower than laptops because desktop bios are not optimized.
If this isn't a reason to put every person involved with making a computer out of a job and have them starve for a month, nothing will.
They all failed at their job and the worst part is if they just were lazy, their products would be so much better.
They are literally just in the way of progress.

>>61286443
>If this isn't a reason to put every person involved with making a computer out of a job and have them starve for a month, nothing will.
No, just management. Better yet, put them to the wall.
Or, just fire Intel and try and get some decent semiconductor foundry to put decent memory interfaces on an octa-core ARM.

>>61286103
its probably because the uefi forum is composed of a shitton of big name companies. i wouldnt lose sleep over it. nothing beats a custom secureboot setup.

>>61286443
>UEFI is slow

Yeah, those 3 extra seconds waiting for the OS to take control of the machine surely disrupt your workflow and make you much less productive.

File: 1491953122535.gif (774KB, 276x220px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 276x220px

uefi.
1. don't have to install any botnet bootloaders if you're using linux or OS X
2. secure boot adds security
3. its the future
4. more standardised, uniform, etc

File: IMG-20170616-WA0008.jpg (290KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1280x720px

>>61286279
I already did anon and I use legacy boot as there's no practically no benefit of switching to uefi. I'm just wondering if there are actual reasons to not use uefi.

>>61287254
what font are you using in your Terminal it looks gross

>>61287254
>inb4 muh root
Added another user after having emerged everything I wanted to

>>61287266
It's xfce default. It looks shitty because the image is badly compressed.

>>61287309
also cause it's a shitty font

>>61285339
that tin foil bait

>>61287254
>all that screen space wasted for bottom launcher
kys