No legacy boot option for X12SDV-* Xeon D-1700 boards

[whydoineedanaccountwhenio]

Hello, I recently got a Supermicro X12SDV-4C-SPT4F board. It looks like they removed the option to boot from legacy MBR disks/sticks. Can somebody confirm this, or give a hint how to enable non UEFI boot in BIOS on this series of boards?

Usually there was a option to select Legacy/Dual/UEFI boot in the Boot options. This option somehow disappeared in my BIOS settings.

Cheers

 

[BlueFox]

Is CSM enabled? That's generally a prerequisite.

 

[whydoineedanaccountwhenio]

Unfortunately there is no such option in the secure boot section:

 

[zac1]

No kidding... I was prepared to make some snide RTFM remark, but there doesn't appear to be any CSM/legacy boot config options!

https://www.supermicro.com/manuals/motherboard/X12/MNL-2478.pdf

 

[Evan]

I guess ‘legacy’ is depreciated
Useful info to know for a lot of people

 

[sko]

It's about time to drop that sad old thing... UEFI has been around for 15+ years now and even the vendors that manage to interpret even the tightest standards wrong have gotten their firmware (mostly) straightened out. I really can't think of anything that hasn't been able to boot via EFI for several (10+?) years now. At least nothing worth running bare-metal.
For those sad old 'proprietary' appliances with 10+ year old and EOL linux underneath you should use a (heavily constrained) VM anyways - or just finally nuke it.

 

[gb00s]

For those sad old 'proprietary' appliances with 10+ year old and EOL linux underneath you should use a (heavily constrained) VM anyways - or just finally nuke it.

Don't want to kick off a Legacy vs UEFI discussion, but are you implying 3rd party bootloaders digitally signed by Microsoft's `root of trust` is ..... Nevermind.

 

[whydoineedanaccountwhenio]

I agree, compatibility sometimes kills innovation. However, I would have liked a bit more transparency and documentation. Like a press release or something which you find when looking for the problem. It's just a waste of time for everyone looking for a solution when there is just none.
Interestingly enough there are boards in the X12 series (e.g. X12SPM-TF/-LN4F/-LN6TF) still supporting CSM/legacy boot which adds even more to the confusion.

 

[sko]

Don't want to kick off a Legacy vs UEFI discussion, but are you implying 3rd party bootloaders digitally signed by Microsoft's `root of trust` is ..... Nevermind.

UEFI has nothing to do with that 'secure boot'-farce...

 

[nasbdh9]

You can boot from UEFI to legacy (use opencore, Clover, or other)

 

[drdepasquale]

Intel has been phasing out legacy support for several years now. The number of new Intel boards with legacy boot support is slim to none.

 

[butrus]

It's about time to drop that sad old thing... UEFI has been around for 15+ years now...

The problem is secure boot and custom linux kernels etc...

 

[butrus]

UEFI has nothing to do with that 'secure boot'-farce...

Yes it does, on many MB you have to use secure boot if you choose UEFI. Going "legacy" is the only way not to have to use secure boot.

If this is also true for server boards - I don't know...

 

[sko]

Yes it does, on many MB you have to use secure boot if you choose UEFI.

This is strictly against the standard and de facto not allowed at least in the EU, where secure boot has been viewed as a form of vendor-lock-in by several courts; some laptop vendors were forced to update their firmwares a few years ago because of those rulings.
I also haven't encountered any halfway recent board where you can't disable that crap. But TBH I haven't dealt with lots of "gaming" hardware (where broken EFI in favour of some shiny GUI seems to be the norm), but at least on e.g. NUCs, workstation boards and servers/'appliances' I was always able to completely disable SB.

 

[RolloZ170]

Yes it does, on many MB you have to use secure boot if you choose UEFI

i ever use UEFI, and never secureboot. i doubt i have used only the rare MB.
all supermicro's i had support UEFI with secureboot disabled(default)

 

[gb00s]

UEFI has nothing to do with that 'secure boot'-farce...

So there we have it. My post was not about 'Secure Boot' as such. My post was about UEFI being used to force users into proprietary boot loaders. You can only use these and that when you boot .... If you are unable to authenticate via digital key, sorry .... It's not just $MS. There are many other vendors out there. As we learned in the past, UEFI does not prevent for anything it was developed for. So the trust is already gone. Features are disadvantages now. If you want to move a mouse over 'BIOS' perfect.

 

[ericloewe]

My post was about UEFI being used to force users into proprietary boot loaders

Well, that's nonsense, as already pointed out.

Yes it does, on many MB you have to use secure boot if you choose UEFI.

In that case you should be able to name a few. It would be rather helpful to those of us interested in steering clear of crap hardware rather than vague FUD and cries of "but Microsoft's key" (who's keeping you from installing your own?).

 

[gb00s]

Well, that's nonsense, as already pointed out.

I fail to find that someone made a serious point. There are many examples of vendors pushing their bootloader with UEFI ... Sony is one of them. And the future will show you what you can boot with an OS from a specific vendor and what not. If you don't let the vendor check against a specific key, you are and will be lost even more in the future. It's all yours now here.

 

[ericloewe]

There are many examples of vendors pushing their bootloader with UEFI

So name them and clearly explain what they're doing, because what you're claiming is ridiculous when taken at face value.

If you're complaining about glorified boot menus in the vein of rEFInd... why do you care? Just bypass them.
If you're complaining about secure boot because...
... vendors make it impossible to add keys other than Microsoft's - name them and shame them.
... it's enabled by default and you can't disable it - name the vendors and shame them.
... it exists - I'm sorry, but your view is narrow-minded.

And the future will show you what you can boot with an OS from a specific vendor and what not. If you don't let the vendor check against a specific key, you are and will be lost even more in the future. It's all yours now here.

Can you rephrase that? Those sentences just do not parse into something comprehensible.