I've been looking around and seeing references to "the uefi version." I went back and looked at the download page. I just realized the significance of the "click the uefi icon" -- which I saw before. It didn't look like a person would normally go there (i.e., I didn't think UEFI was that new; I thought it was something else, after the official download links.).
Maybe that's my problem? I wouldn't think a non-UEFI distro would be unrecognized by the bios's boot list (and have that error message by gparted, about a nested partition). But, I don't know much about these things.
IMO, the download page could be made clearer. The official download could say "for older, non-UEFI machines." UEFI being around so long, I don't think anyone would suspect that an ordinary-looking download link wouldn't be ordinary. From what I gather, this distro arose as a solution to older Windows users being squeezed out (XP users first, then 7, etc.). I can see how UEFI wouldn't have been a priority. But, I don't think the average person landing on the download page would understand that. You just see the download link and think it works like any other distro. (Regarding the UEFI stuff below it: once you have the link, what's to look at? That's how I flowed with it. Seems like the standard download's *not* having UEFI would be an important point to raise, instead of implying it with the part beneath.).
While I'm opining... The UEFI logo goes to page 9 of a thread. At that point it's not clear what to do, the state of things, where to get it, etc. (Or, more importantly, if it's even recommended that people use it. From the posts I've seen on the forum, it sounds like people are recommending it. But, it's not clear from the download page.). If it's not ready for primetime, I'm sorry for suggesting that it be treated as if it were. But, it's not clear what a person should do or expect in this area.
EDIT: After looking closer at that, I think the UEFI logo deposited me on a post with the link to download the UEFI version.
I should probably shut up now that I understand things better. But, I still think the mainstream download part of the page should prominently say "LEGACY, NO UEFI SUPPORT". I don't think anyone would assume that's a question (are there any distros that don't have UEFI? And/or have alternate ISOs for it? I don't recall it working that way even when distros were in the process of supporting it, which was some time ago.). Therefore I don't think many would scroll further down for what really is the important information.
And, then, why not just have the link to the test UEFI version there (point to the thread as the place to go to discuss it)? I'm probably being nitpicky now. Sorry. I'm just coming at it from my experiences with other distros. I was not the least bit inclined to expect this approach. I imagine other people would be too assuming also.
Now that I am properly orientated, I am downloading the test UEFI and anxiously hoping it works! I will report back.
Maybe that's my problem? I wouldn't think a non-UEFI distro would be unrecognized by the bios's boot list (and have that error message by gparted, about a nested partition). But, I don't know much about these things.
IMO, the download page could be made clearer. The official download could say "for older, non-UEFI machines." UEFI being around so long, I don't think anyone would suspect that an ordinary-looking download link wouldn't be ordinary. From what I gather, this distro arose as a solution to older Windows users being squeezed out (XP users first, then 7, etc.). I can see how UEFI wouldn't have been a priority. But, I don't think the average person landing on the download page would understand that. You just see the download link and think it works like any other distro. (Regarding the UEFI stuff below it: once you have the link, what's to look at? That's how I flowed with it. Seems like the standard download's *not* having UEFI would be an important point to raise, instead of implying it with the part beneath.).
While I'm opining... The UEFI logo goes to page 9 of a thread. At that point it's not clear what to do, the state of things, where to get it, etc. (Or, more importantly, if it's even recommended that people use it. From the posts I've seen on the forum, it sounds like people are recommending it. But, it's not clear from the download page.). If it's not ready for primetime, I'm sorry for suggesting that it be treated as if it were. But, it's not clear what a person should do or expect in this area.
EDIT: After looking closer at that, I think the UEFI logo deposited me on a post with the link to download the UEFI version.
I should probably shut up now that I understand things better. But, I still think the mainstream download part of the page should prominently say "LEGACY, NO UEFI SUPPORT". I don't think anyone would assume that's a question (are there any distros that don't have UEFI? And/or have alternate ISOs for it? I don't recall it working that way even when distros were in the process of supporting it, which was some time ago.). Therefore I don't think many would scroll further down for what really is the important information.
And, then, why not just have the link to the test UEFI version there (point to the thread as the place to go to discuss it)? I'm probably being nitpicky now. Sorry. I'm just coming at it from my experiences with other distros. I was not the least bit inclined to expect this approach. I imagine other people would be too assuming also.
Now that I am properly orientated, I am downloading the test UEFI and anxiously hoping it works! I will report back.