为特定系统编码OS [英] Coding an OS for a specific system

问题描述

这可能不是一个合适的场所，但可以希望:P

我四处搜寻，希望能够找到以下答案，但到目前为止，还没有运气.

我正在考虑为特定的系统设置编写OS编码，我想获得我可以利用的每分每秒的性能，因此它将是快速，残酷和原始的.

现在;考察UEFI(我认为它将完全取代BIOS)后，发现UEFI仅仅是" BIOS之上的一个层(伪OS)，以使OS更具可移植性.接口到另一个接口的接口.

因此，首先提出以下几个问题:
-如果将操作系统写入特定系统，UEFI不会导致性能损失，因为它会增加与许多设备的兼容性
-如果是上述情况；是否可以完全避开UEFI，直接与BIOS通讯，或者UEFI会在任何情况下启动"?

为了确保获得尽可能多的原始性能，我非常希望尽可能直接与硬件进行通信，因此，我更倾向于使用ASM来获取大多数原始数据.

最后，我想问一问，一旦操作系统完全加载，BIOS和/或UEFI是否实际上处于活动状态?

我已经阅读了一些有关为BIOS创建引导加载程序的指南，但是在实际的OS上却找不到任何内容，因此我真的不知道利用Windows XP中已经存在的功能是否是一个好主意. BIOS，或者最好还是用BIOS来提高性能.

This might not be the right site to ask, but one can hope :P

I''ve searched around in the hopes that I''d be able to find an answer to the following, but so far, no luck.

I''m looking into coding an OS for a specific system setup, and I want to get every ounce of performance I can squeeze out of it, so it''ll be fast, brutal and raw.

Now; Looking into UEFI, which I thought would completely replace the BIOS, it turns out, that UEFI is ''merely'' a layer on top of the BIOS, a pseudo OS, to make OS''s more portable. An interface to an interface to yet another interface.

So the first of a few quesions:
- If an OS is written to a specific system, won''t the UEFI result in performanceloss, seing as it adds compatibility for a lot of devices
- If the above is the case; Is it possible to completely avoid the UEFI, and communicate directly with the BIOS, or will UEFI ''boot'' no matter what?

To make sure that I get as much raw performance, I''d very much prefer to communicate as directly with hardware as possible, thus I''d prefer ASM for the most raw bits.

Finally I''d like to ask if the BIOS and/or UEFI is actually active, once the OS is fully loaded?

I''ve read a few guides on creating a bootloader for BIOS, but havn''t found anything on the actual OS, so I don''t really know if it''s a good idea to utilize the functions already existing in the BIOS, or if it''s better/the same to write your own for performance.

推荐答案

我对您的问题没有特定的答案，但是一些这些文章 [

I do not have specific answers to your questions, but some of these articles[^] may be useful.

是的...

那里有很多不错的文章，但是我想弄清楚的是，我们还是为UEFI或BIOS编写了系统.如果无法避免UEFI，这个问题将是反讽的；如果计算机运行时UEFI和/或BIOS不处于活动状态，则问题就不那么重要了(我仍然希望只处理BIOS)为避免不必要的内存使用和处理时间，在我可以为系统初始化OS之前，我已经知道其组件.

实际上，如果它甚至可以远程实现(我知道使用正确的工具和文档完全可以实现，但是有点不容易)，我会认真考虑为该特定系统制作BIOS，以获取启动时间.遵循C64的原则(是的……如果系统损坏，那将是整个系统的粗暴，没有POST，内存测试和其他耗时的垃圾-让它损坏，或者让OS找出是否损坏它设法加载):P

我一直将BIOS视为纯粹的启动程序，并且在操作系统初始化后就完全不相关了，但是最近几天我读到的内容使我感到怀疑.

Yeah...

There are quite a few good articles there, but what I''m trying to figure out, is wether to write the system for UEFI or BIOS. The question is irellevant if it''s not possible to avoid UEFI, and it''s less relevant if UEFI and/or BIOS is/are not active while the computer is running (I''d still prefer only dealing with the BIOS to avoid unnecesary use of memory and prossesing time, before I can initialize the OS for the system I already know the components of.

Actually, had it been even remotely possible (i know it prolly is, with the right tools and documentation, but it''s a little far fetched), I''d prolly look into making a BIOS for that specific system, to get startuptimes along the lines of a C64 (yeah... It would be a total brute of a system, no POST, memory test and other timeconsuming junk, if the system is broken - let it be broken, or let the OS figure it out if it manages to load) :P

I''ve always seen BIOS as a pure startup, and as completely irrelevant once the OS has been initialized, but what I''ve read these past few days, got me doubting.

这篇关于为特定系统编码OS的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！