EasyBCD is deadly dangerous on UEFI systems.


New Member
The only correct behavior for EasyBCD on UEFI systems, such as the new motherboards from Gigabyte, is to refuse to run. The current behavior on an UEFI system, is that it runs and does not display any errors. EasyBCD fails to read the bootloader entries, but it does WRITE TO THEM. This is the worst combination.

I installed EasyBCD, ran it, and clicked on “Add Entry”. Nothing seemed to happen, but it silently wrote an entry. I clicked on “Add Entry” again, and it silently wrote another entry. I closed the program, and EasyBCD warned me that my system would not boot, but of course it was too late. Only after I read the FAQ did I figure out what was wrong. I made an emergency recovery disk, and rebooted. I was “lucky” in that I went straight to the FAQ after EasyBCD’s unexpected behavior. The two new boot entries are completely un-bootable, I hope to figure out how to delete them later.

Most Windows users with UEFI motherboards do not know it. It must be EasyBCD’s functionality to check at startup, before modifying anything on the user’s system.


Mostly Harmless
Staff member
EasyBCD is not UEFI ready. There have been numerous posts about this, and I have not yet had time to add UEFI support to EasyBCD.

However, EasyBCD 2.2 build 173 should protect against the behavior you describe: EasyBCD 2.2 Beta Builds

Can you please confirm? It should list your entries and see them.

Mak 2.0

Staff member
Here is a simple but effective question. Why would someone wait till AFTER they encounter an issue to read the FAQ and information provided? I mean it isnt called Frequently Asked Questions for a reason right? So your blaming EasyBCD for the simple fact you didnt read this information before trying to make changes that could potentially cause damage to your system?

So let me ask this, since Microsoft is enforcing OEM's and manufacturer's to include UEFI within the BIOS's, why it is EasyBCD's fault for trying to allow users to do what they want? I mean if you read anything about the UEFI it is blocking people from being able to install anything but Windows. EasyBCD is trying to work around such measures, but without the support of Microsoft, we can only do so much. I mean Microsoft is trying to be like Apple and preventing other OS's from being installed on your machine. We are trying to help.

But at the same time we are not responsible if people do not read the information provided until it is to late. We cant force people to read the FAQ and Wiki information. We cant force you to install and run EasyBCD either. You made that choice and you made the choice to forgo reading the provided information that could potentially damage your system. So I wouldnt go casting stones saying that we need to check for UEFI based systems up front when you didnt bother to see if it was compatible to begin with. We cant hold the world's hand when trying to help multi boot systems. It is the users choice to create a multi boot, it is also the user who has to know the dangers of trying to do so on their system. We are not there with them so we cant tell them if everything will go as expected. We dont all operate with brand new equipment to know if the mobo you have will be equipped with UEFI either.

So a little preparation can go a lot further than placing blame on others. I am sure Mahmoud will take the UEFI check into consideration, but at the same time you failed to see if it would work before jumping in. We cant be held responsible for people who dont want to be prepared.


Mostly Harmless
Staff member
It's OK, Alex. I would be angry too if I lost all my entries; though you're right that there are several UEFI threads already here describing some pitfalls.

Anyway, like I mentioned, I would be very interested in knowing if the latest EasyBCD 2.2 still exhibits this behavior.


Active Member
Hey charlweed, did you read through the thread I started? We started out identically. If you got your issue fixed, hook me up with some information, if not, try reading through my thread to see if anything helps you. I'm stuck on practically the last step.

I agree that people who casually use these programs should be overwhelmingly notified of the failure of integration with UEFI systems. I understand that they cover themselves by saying, "If you look around and read, it is there, you can't blame us" but it would be nice to have something a bit more in your face, perhaps. Because I have a feeling a lot fo people are running UEFIs nowadays.