Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The ASUS "Bay Trail" T100 Is Not Linux Friendly

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic The ASUS "Bay Trail" T100 Is Not Linux Friendly

    The ASUS "Bay Trail" T100 Is Not Linux Friendly

    Phoronix: The ASUS "Bay Trail" T100 Is Not Linux Friendly

    Last week I bought the ASUS Transformer Book T100TA, which is one of the first Intel "Bay Trail" devices in the United States. At a cost of $399 USD, it isn't as cheap as some Bay Trail devices talked up by Intel, but I was eager to see how the "Valley View" graphics would perform and all-around how this Atom SoC would run under Linux. Sadly, the ASUS T100TA appears to be a crap wreck at this point for running Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ5NzE

  • Figueiredo
    replied
    More of these systems from other OEMs are coming out, lets see if their UEFI implementations are any better...

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/hp-omni-...nel/63163.html

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/dell-ven...wer/63127.html

    I'm really interested in one of those. Any luck on booting vanilla x86 distros?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by sireangelus View Post
    i actually realized that bay trail has no emt64 support on it, so this might actually be a total waste of time trying to boot anything 64bit on it. As the old atoms did, the actual circuitry is there but is disabled/burned.

    Edit: apparently according to intel's Ark, i'm wrong. They do have emt64;
    They do have emt64, but the question is, why did Intel announce that the initial batch of Bay Trail hardware will only boot 32bit operating systems.

    I doubt most people will even be able to install a fresh copy x64 Windows 8.1 into the T100 unless Microsoft bundles both 32bit and 64bit EFI images in their x64 install ISO.

    Leave a comment:


  • sireangelus
    replied
    Originally posted by sireangelus View Post
    michael, try to do this. Create a pendrive with gparted, formatting the partition table with gpt, and copy/past form the iso the files on a fat32 partition. it should work just like that.
    i actually realized that bay trail has no emt64 support on it, so this might actually be a total waste of time trying to boot anything 64bit on it. As the old atoms did, the actual circuitry is there but is disabled/burned.

    Edit: apparently according to intel's Ark, i'm wrong. They do have emt64;
    Last edited by sireangelus; 10-31-2013, 06:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sireangelus
    replied
    michael, try to do this. Create a pendrive with gparted, formatting the partition table with gpt, and copy/past form the iso the files on a fat32 partition. it should work just like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    There was an article put out quite time ago which stated that Intel themselves made the claim that the initial batch of Bay Trail hardware will run 32-bit Windows 8.1 only, with 64-bit preloaded Windows 8.1 only being available some time next year.

    In hindsight, this may have been early warning about the 32bit UEFI firmware + 64-bit processr mismatch that we are experiencing with the T100 right now.

    By this logic, the time to get Bay Trail hardware for use with x64 Linux should be when such hardware loaded with x64 Windows start appearing in the market.

    (That said, Im curious; have anyone tried to slap on a 32bit Linux distribution to see if it boots on the T100?)

    Leave a comment:


  • Adarion
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    UEFI in and of itself isn't bad. Sure it's not as good as Coreboot, but at least it's not nearly as bad as BIOS. What is bad is motherboard engineers having no idea how to implement it properly.
    Well, BIOS did have some odd quirks and limitations. While it would be okay to remove these and add support for new tech stuff it is just ridiculous why that reference implementation had to be as large as the Linux kernel without drivers. I mean, what the heck. Things a little about 256 Kbyte size binary could do is now done in many megabytes?
    Of course mainboard vendors or the "bios" implementers make things normally even worse, that's true.

    The main job of this kind of software is just to wake up hardware (which can be complex enough already, just listen to some coreboot talks held on Linux cons), activate interfaces, maybe show the user a little screen with basic system info or an error message and finally give control to a kernel or a bootloader. I'm actually scared to know what else these huge UEFI blobs do.

    Leave a comment:


  • gigaplex
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    UEFI in and of itself isn't bad. Sure it's not as good as Coreboot, but at least it's not nearly as bad as BIOS. What is bad is motherboard engineers having no idea how to implement it properly.
    UEFI and BIOS are firmware interfaces. Coreboot is a firmware implementation. Coreboot has both BIOS and UEFI implementations.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheScorpion
    replied
    fucking uefi and secureboot

    God I hate that crap!! But this is by no mean Linux-only. Try to boot Windows 7 on any of this securefucked machines. Turning it off is a pain in the ass. It always boots Windows 8, fuckin microsoft, I bet my ass they pushed this in order to make really hard to get rid of Windows 8
    Last edited by TheScorpion; 10-29-2013, 04:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by Adarion View Post
    "Thank you" intel for gifting us UEFI. Now use a bad template and make it even worse by giving it to vendors who mess it up even more. Still, only important is to have animations of fans spinning in the "BIOS"setup or even have a 3D-"BIOS"-Setup screen. Oh wow.
    UEFI in and of itself isn't bad. Sure it's not as good as Coreboot, but at least it's not nearly as bad as BIOS. What is bad is motherboard engineers having no idea how to implement it properly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X