Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Just spent an "interesting" (to put it mildly!) weekend on this project to enable a microprocessor upgrade. I wouldn't recommend it for the faint-hearted, suffice it to say, or you might end up with a paperweight. :-) You know, it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that in some cases, there is no reverse path available (i..e, it's a one way trip) - which seems unforgiveable, on their part! My question is: why do these BIOS manufacturers sometimes make it so damn difficult to upgrade/downgrade or go back to a previous version (especially when going from one manufacturer to one its subsidiaries, or vice versa (like Dell and Intel)? And not only that, but even block certain upgrades with certain chips, just out of self-centered arrogance on their part (and not due to real chip limitations)?
Guest MEB Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uVIv54$gIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | Just spent an "interesting" (to put it mildly!) weekend on this project to | enable a microprocessor upgrade. I wouldn't recommend it for the | faint-hearted, suffice it to say, or you might end up with a paperweight. | :-) | | You know, it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that in some cases, there is | no reverse path available (i..e, it's a one way trip) - which seems | unforgiveable, on their part! | | My question is: why do these BIOS manufacturers sometimes make it so damn | difficult to upgrade/downgrade or go back to a previous version (especially | when going from one manufacturer to one its subsidiaries, or vice versa | (like Dell and Intel)? | | And not only that, but even block certain upgrades with certain chips, just | out of self-centered arrogance on their part (and not due to real chip | limitations)? I can definitely relate to that type of experience. Made a few paper-weights in the early days, a couple my fault [like flashing with the wrong BIOS or leaving the flash disk in the wrong computer and rebooting], some the flash tool or a badly created upgrade. Generally, the preliminaries are always to set the BIOS back to defaults prior to any flash [unless you're over-clocking]. Regarding the flash, if not BIOS instituted {newer boards}, the separate flash tool/file usually has a switch to save the present BIOS to a bin or other file. Sadly many make that information hard to find. If this is done, then one can roll-back to the older IF you also over-write the Boot code. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS MEB wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:uVIv54$gIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Just spent an "interesting" (to put it mildly!) weekend on this project >> to >> enable a microprocessor upgrade. I wouldn't recommend it for the >> faint-hearted, suffice it to say, or you might end up with a paperweight. >> :-) >> >> You know, it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that in some cases, there >> is >> no reverse path available (i..e, it's a one way trip) - which seems >> unforgiveable, on their part! >> >> My question is: why do these BIOS manufacturers sometimes make it so >> damn >> difficult to upgrade/downgrade or go back to a previous version >> (especially >> when going from one manufacturer to one its subsidiaries, or vice versa >> (like Dell and Intel)? >> >> And not only that, but even block certain upgrades with certain chips, >> just >> out of self-centered arrogance on their part (and not due to real chip >> limitations)? > > I can definitely relate to that type of experience. Made a few > paper-weights in the early days, a couple my fault [like flashing with the > wrong BIOS or leaving the flash disk in the wrong computer and rebooting], > some the flash tool or a badly created upgrade. I bet that was *quite* annoying, too. > Generally, the preliminaries are always to set the BIOS back to defaults > prior to any flash [unless you're over-clocking]. Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. Learned that the hard way, but at least I didn't end up with a paperweight (but it was a close call, at some points). Actually, at a later point in time, it wouldn't boot into Windows, so I had created a DOS-only machine at that point. (Nice, really nice). Still, it was better than being locked out of even being able to get in and set up the BIOS for the system (it demanded a password at that point). Finally got this all resolved. (Sigh of relief). What a weekend, though. It can be a bit hair-raising, to say the least, since you really are treading on the razor's edge in this territory. :-). > Regarding the flash, if not BIOS instituted {newer boards}, the separate > flash tool/file usually has a switch to save the present BIOS to a bin or > other file. Sadly many make that information hard to find. > If this is done, then one can roll-back to the older IF you also > over-write > the Boot code. Never found that specific documentation, but I sure looked around a bit. I don't think its an option for all of them, though. Of course, I am dealing with an older board here, circa 2000.
Guest MEB Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:O8SIQeBhIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | MEB wrote: | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message | > news:uVIv54$gIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | >> Just spent an "interesting" (to put it mildly!) weekend on this project | >> to | >> enable a microprocessor upgrade. I wouldn't recommend it for the | >> faint-hearted, suffice it to say, or you might end up with a paperweight. | >> :-) | >> | >> You know, it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that in some cases, there | >> is | >> no reverse path available (i..e, it's a one way trip) - which seems | >> unforgiveable, on their part! | >> | >> My question is: why do these BIOS manufacturers sometimes make it so | >> damn | >> difficult to upgrade/downgrade or go back to a previous version | >> (especially | >> when going from one manufacturer to one its subsidiaries, or vice versa | >> (like Dell and Intel)? | >> | >> And not only that, but even block certain upgrades with certain chips, | >> just | >> out of self-centered arrogance on their part (and not due to real chip | >> limitations)? | > | > I can definitely relate to that type of experience. Made a few | > paper-weights in the early days, a couple my fault [like flashing with the | > wrong BIOS or leaving the flash disk in the wrong computer and rebooting], | > some the flash tool or a badly created upgrade. | | I bet that was *quite* annoying, too. More than annoying, my mistakes were costly, but getting the manufacturers to admit that THEY had screwed up was a study in $technical war$. | | > Generally, the preliminaries are always to set the BIOS back to defaults | > prior to any flash [unless you're over-clocking]. | | Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to | first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. | Learned that the hard way, but at least I didn't end up with a paperweight | (but it was a close call, at some points). Right, don't set ANYTHING after that first reboot, but SAVE the CMOS settings, reboot, then carefully walk through the prior specialty settings.ONE AT A TIME. And this because, these may also have been modified OR changed. | | Actually, at a later point in time, it wouldn't boot into Windows, so I had | created a DOS-only machine at that point. (Nice, really nice). | Still, it was better than being locked out of even being able to get in and | set up the BIOS for the system (it demanded a password at that point). Oh now that's interesting, a defaulted PASSWORD,,, so what BIOS/motherboard was this? | | Finally got this all resolved. (Sigh of relief). What a weekend, | though. It can be a bit hair-raising, to say the least, since you really | are treading on the razor's edge in this territory. :-). | | > Regarding the flash, if not BIOS instituted {newer boards}, the separate | > flash tool/file usually has a switch to save the present BIOS to a bin or | > other file. Sadly many make that information hard to find. | > If this is done, then one can roll-back to the older IF you also | > over-write | > the Boot code. | | Never found that specific documentation, but I sure looked around a bit. I | don't think its an option for all of them, though. Of course, I am dealing | with an older board here, circa 2000. | Sounds like an old Phoenix or AMI BIOS. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:03:27 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to >first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. The "extended" CMOS RAM (byte 65 and above) contains various chipset register settings, eg memory timings, FSB settings, peripheral configuration info, etc. Any RAM location can have any function as defined by the BIOS code. For example, there is no guarantee that BIOS version 2 will store the SDRAM memory timings at the same CMOS RAM location as BIOS version 1, so one could expect a black screen during the first POST after a BIOS flash. Clearing the CMOS RAM and reverting to defaults circumvents this potential problem. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS MEB wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:O8SIQeBhIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> MEB wrote: >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:uVIv54$gIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> Just spent an "interesting" (to put it mildly!) weekend on this project >>>> to >>>> enable a microprocessor upgrade. I wouldn't recommend it for the >>>> faint-hearted, suffice it to say, or you might end up with a >>>> paperweight. >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> You know, it wouldn't be quite so bad, except that in some cases, there >>>> is >>>> no reverse path available (i..e, it's a one way trip) - which seems >>>> unforgiveable, on their part! >>>> >>>> My question is: why do these BIOS manufacturers sometimes make it so >>>> damn >>>> difficult to upgrade/downgrade or go back to a previous version >>>> (especially >>>> when going from one manufacturer to one its subsidiaries, or vice versa >>>> (like Dell and Intel)? >>>> >>>> And not only that, but even block certain upgrades with certain chips, >>>> just out of self-centered arrogance on their part (and not due to real >>>> chip >>>> limitations)? >>> >>> I can definitely relate to that type of experience. Made a few >>> paper-weights in the early days, a couple my fault [like flashing with >>> the >>> wrong BIOS or leaving the flash disk in the wrong computer and >>> rebooting], >>> some the flash tool or a badly created upgrade. >> >> I bet that was *quite* annoying, too. > > More than annoying, my mistakes were costly, but getting the manufacturers > to admit that THEY had screwed up was a study in $technical war$. > >> >>> Generally, the preliminaries are always to set the BIOS back to defaults >>> prior to any flash [unless you're over-clocking]. >> >> Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to >> first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. >> Learned that the hard way, but at least I didn't end up with a >> paperweight >> (but it was a close call, at some points). > > Right, don't set ANYTHING after that first reboot, but SAVE the CMOS > settings, reboot, then carefully walk through the prior specialty > settings.ONE AT A TIME. And this because, these may also have been > modified > OR changed. > >> >> Actually, at a later point in time, it wouldn't boot into Windows, so I >> had >> created a DOS-only machine at that point. (Nice, really nice). >> Still, it was better than being locked out of even being able to get in >> and >> set up the BIOS for the system (it demanded a password at that point). > > Oh now that's interesting, a defaulted PASSWORD,,, so what > BIOS/motherboard > was this? (This is for my Dell 4100 computer, with Windows98SE (circa year 2000 or so): The BIOS upgrade was Intel P10 (actually EA81510A.86A.0046.P10), and the motherboard is (Dell) Intel D815EEA. But the problem was apparently created because when I first flashed the BIOS and then booted up, I did NOT initially select the option to load the Defaults (but I did try changing some of the settings in there anyway). Big mistake. After I rebooted, and tried get into BIOS to fix things up, it asked me for a password (real nice, I'll tell ya!! And I tried a few entries including just <CR>, and nothing worked). Finally, I found the way out of this hole by temporarily moving the BIOS jumper on the motherboard to the recovery or maintenance mode position, so that when I rebooted, I *was* finally able to get into BIOS, and change the settings to the proper values, and no password was required. Now the microprocessor upgrade (PowerLeap) works great, and the only problem I have is that I cannot select Ultra DMA Mode 5 in the BIOS, as Mode 4 is as high as it goes in the list. Bummer. Whether or not that means I am really locked into Ultra Mode 4, or just that the BIOS can't tell what is actually available for my system (and Mode 5 was, in the previous Dell BIOS), I don't know for sure. But I'm hoping I am running in Ultra Mode 5 (despite what the BIOS setting says). I probably should look for some utility that actually can report the truth (and not just what the BIOS screen allows me to select there), as my system IS capable of running in Ultra Mode 5. (And the newer P11 Intel BIOS recognizes that, but it is incompatible with this microprocessor upgrade - already BTDT). >> Finally got this all resolved. (Sigh of relief). What a weekend, >> though. It can be a bit hair-raising, to say the least, since you >> really >> are treading on the razor's edge in this territory. :-). >> >>> Regarding the flash, if not BIOS instituted {newer boards}, the separate >>> flash tool/file usually has a switch to save the present BIOS to a bin >>> or >>> other file. Sadly many make that information hard to find. >>> If this is done, then one can roll-back to the older IF you also >>> over-write >>> the Boot code. >> >> Never found that specific documentation, but I sure looked around a bit. >> I >> don't think its an option for all of them, though. Of course, I am >> dealing >> with an older board here, circa 2000. >> > > Sounds like an old Phoenix or AMI BIOS. per above...
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:03:27 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to >> first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. > > The "extended" CMOS RAM (byte 65 and above) contains various chipset > register settings, eg memory timings, FSB settings, peripheral > configuration info, etc. Any RAM location can have any function as > defined by the BIOS code. For example, there is no guarantee that BIOS > version 2 will store the SDRAM memory timings at the same CMOS RAM > location as BIOS version 1, so one could expect a black screen during > the first POST after a BIOS flash. Clearing the CMOS RAM and reverting > to defaults circumvents this potential problem. > > - Franc Zabkar Thanks for that info, Frank. I think I should take a look into it a bit more. And I also need to figure out how to get back to Ultra DMA Mode 5, since that option wasn't available in this current BIOS. (Ultra DMA Mode 4 was as high as it goes, or at least as it shows up in its config list). I'm not sure if that means I'm stuck in Ultra Mode 4, or just that the BIOS doesn't know any better, since I *do* know I was able to get it in the other BIOS (i.e., the HD's support it). But this is the only BIOS version I can use, for this specific microprocessor upgrade.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:50:46 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >I probably should look for some utility that actually can report the truth >(and not just what the BIOS screen allows me to select there), as my system >IS capable of running in Ultra Mode 5. (And the newer P11 Intel BIOS >recognizes that, but it is incompatible with this microprocessor upgrade - >already BTDT). How about SmartUDM? It's a DOS application, so it should tell you how the drive is configured after the POST. Here are some example reports from my PCs: http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT HDD 1 Model: ST3120026A (Athlon XP 2500 CPU) PIO Mode Support: 4 SW DMA Mode Support: None MW DMA Mode Support: 2, Active: None UDMA Mode Support: 5 (UltraDMA/100), Active: 5 http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT HDD 1 Model: ST313021A (socket 7 motherboard) PIO Mode Support: 4 SW DMA Mode Support: None MW DMA Mode Support: 2, Active: None UDMA Mode Support: 4 (UltraDMA/66), Active: 2 http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT HDD 2 Model: FUJITSU MPE3064AT (Athlon XP 2500, IIRC) PIO Mode Support: 4 SW DMA Mode Support: None MW DMA Mode Support: 2, Active: None UDMA Mode Support: 4 (UltraDMA/66), Active: 4 - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:52:10 +1100, Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:50:46 -0600, "Bill in Co." ><not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >>I probably should look for some utility that actually can report the truth >>(and not just what the BIOS screen allows me to select there), as my system >>IS capable of running in Ultra Mode 5. (And the newer P11 Intel BIOS >>recognizes that, but it is incompatible with this microprocessor upgrade - >>already BTDT). > >How about SmartUDM? It's a DOS application, so it should tell you how >the drive is configured after the POST. Everest Home Edition (for Windows) produces the following report for a Fujitsu MPF3204AT in a socket 7 box: Max. PIO Transfer Mode PIO 4 Max. UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 4 (ATA-66) Active UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 2 (ATA-33) - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:52:10 +1100, Franc Zabkar > <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:50:46 -0600, "Bill in Co." >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>> I probably should look for some utility that actually can report the >>> truth >>> (and not just what the BIOS screen allows me to select there), as my >>> system >>> IS capable of running in Ultra Mode 5. (And the newer P11 Intel BIOS >>> recognizes that, but it is incompatible with this microprocessor >>> upgrade - >>> already BTDT). >> >> How about SmartUDM? It's a DOS application, so it should tell you how >> the drive is configured after the POST. > > Everest Home Edition (for Windows) produces the following report for a > Fujitsu MPF3204AT in a socket 7 box: > > Max. PIO Transfer Mode PIO 4 > Max. UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 4 (ATA-66) > Active UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 2 (ATA-33) > > - Franc Zabkar Thanks, Frank. I'll look into both of them (and I already have an older freebie version of Everest (1.51) Hmmm. ...let's see... OK, found it in Everest, under the "Storage, ATA" tab, I get: Max. PIO Transfer Mode: PIO 4 Max. UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) Active UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) ....which sounds encouraging. I think it's this high because I'm using the 80 conductor cables, and my WD EIDE drives support it, and, as I recall, I installed some Intel software update at one point in time (but NOT that infamous one, which trashed my system on another date (and there was one of those, shown as a recommended update, on the MS site, but they later removed it). So I'm wondering why yours is a bit lower above, and I expect it's due to some condition mentioned above not being met (or perhaps a really old BIOS)? But at any rate, evidently this BIOS doesn't show Ultra Mode 5 (because it is too dated), but apparently the system IS running with Ultra Mode 5 capability. I should probably try out the DOS version to really confirm this, too. Thanks.
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:53:31 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: >> Everest Home Edition (for Windows) produces the following report for a >> Fujitsu MPF3204AT in a socket 7 box: >> >> Max. PIO Transfer Mode PIO 4 >> Max. UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 4 (ATA-66) >> Active UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 2 (ATA-33) >> >> - Franc Zabkar > >Thanks, Frank. I'll look into both of them (and I already have an older >freebie version of Everest (1.51) > >Hmmm. ...let's see... >OK, found it in Everest, under the "Storage, ATA" tab, I get: > >Max. PIO Transfer Mode: PIO 4 >Max. UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) >Active UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) > >...which sounds encouraging. I think it's this high because I'm using >the 80 conductor cables, and my WD EIDE drives support it, and, as I recall, >I installed some Intel software update at one point in time (but NOT that >infamous one, which trashed my system on another date (and there was one of >those, shown as a recommended update, on the MS site, but they later removed >it). > >So I'm wondering why yours is a bit lower above, and I expect it's due to >some condition mentioned above not being met (or perhaps a really old BIOS)? My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to ATA-33. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:53:31 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> Franc Zabkar wrote: > >>> Everest Home Edition (for Windows) produces the following report for a >>> Fujitsu MPF3204AT in a socket 7 box: >>> >>> Max. PIO Transfer Mode PIO 4 >>> Max. UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 4 (ATA-66) >>> Active UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 2 (ATA-33) >>> >>> - Franc Zabkar >> >> Thanks, Frank. I'll look into both of them (and I already have an >> older >> freebie version of Everest (1.51) >> >> Hmmm. ...let's see... >> OK, found it in Everest, under the "Storage, ATA" tab, I get: >> >> Max. PIO Transfer Mode: PIO 4 >> Max. UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) >> Active UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) >> >> ...which sounds encouraging. I think it's this high because I'm using >> the 80 conductor cables, and my WD EIDE drives support it, and, as I >> recall, >> I installed some Intel software update at one point in time (but NOT that >> infamous one, which trashed my system on another date (and there was one >> of >> those, shown as a recommended update, on the MS site, but they later >> removed >> it). >> >> So I'm wondering why yours is a bit lower above, and I expect it's due to >> some condition mentioned above not being met (or perhaps a really old >> BIOS)? > > My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to > ATA-33. OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean technically, from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like the example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 interleaving ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk problem)
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:02:49 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: >> My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to >> ATA-33. > >OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, >specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean technically, >from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like the >example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 interleaving >ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk >problem) AFAIK it's the chipset (SiS 5597/5598) that is the limitation. The chipset datasheet states that its "Fast PCI IDE Master/Slave Controller" supports ... - IDE PIO Timing Mode 0, 1, 2 ,3 and 4 - Multiword DMA Mode 0, 1, 2 - Ultra DMA/33 See http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/3078981.pdf - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest MEB Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u31sg$MhIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | Franc Zabkar wrote: | > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:53:31 -0600, "Bill in Co." | > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: | > | >> Franc Zabkar wrote: | > | >>> Everest Home Edition (for Windows) produces the following report for a | >>> Fujitsu MPF3204AT in a socket 7 box: | >>> | >>> Max. PIO Transfer Mode PIO 4 | >>> Max. UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 4 (ATA-66) | >>> Active UDMA Transfer Mode UDMA 2 (ATA-33) | >>> | >>> - Franc Zabkar | >> | >> Thanks, Frank. I'll look into both of them (and I already have an | >> older | >> freebie version of Everest (1.51) | >> | >> Hmmm. ...let's see... | >> OK, found it in Everest, under the "Storage, ATA" tab, I get: | >> | >> Max. PIO Transfer Mode: PIO 4 | >> Max. UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) | >> Active UDMA Transfer Mode: UDMA 5 (ATA-100) | >> | >> ...which sounds encouraging. I think it's this high because I'm using | >> the 80 conductor cables, and my WD EIDE drives support it, and, as I | >> recall, | >> I installed some Intel software update at one point in time (but NOT that | >> infamous one, which trashed my system on another date (and there was one | >> of | >> those, shown as a recommended update, on the MS site, but they later | >> removed | >> it). | >> | >> So I'm wondering why yours is a bit lower above, and I expect it's due to | >> some condition mentioned above not being met (or perhaps a really old | >> BIOS)? | > | > My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to | > ATA-33. | | OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, | specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean technically, | from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like the | example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 interleaving | ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk | problem) | | It revolves around the ATA/ATAPI standards that have been created and chips which have this support HARD CODED into the actual adapter chip. The BIOS is then created to support the chips supplied upon the mother board. If the chip has no support for a newer standard {way of addressing/translation} then nothing can be done to circumvent that limitation at the hard coded level as the on-chip translation can not occur without that built-in support. Flash upgrades for the BIOS or device may include code changes which CAN be supported [chip-wise], but may not have been available or were improperly coded when originally released. Referencing: http://www.t13.org/ - the master site http://www.t13.org/Standards/Default.aspx?DocumentType=3 http://ata-atapi.com/ http://hddguru.com/content/en/documentation/2006.01.27-ATA-ATAPI-7/ http://hddguru.com/content/en/documentation/2006.01.27-ATA-ATAPI-5/ http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/stdATA4-c.html http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/stdATA4.html The only way to consistently over-ride the limitations is to add an adapter which provides the newer standards/translation, and a device which also supports the target standard or newer. Certain issues related to OS support can be addressed via modification to drivers or additional software which provides that support, however, without an adapter/chip set, which also supports the newer standard, these provide nothing of real value. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest MEB Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS One thing I should perhaps address related to flashing a motherboard BIOS, is to remove/disconnect as many devices as possible, in addition to default setting the BIOS/CMOS, to negate potential issue which may be involved when the first reboot after the flash is done. A previously recommended activity, was to only leave the floppy drive connected and a 8bit or 16bit video card attached, though with the advent of PCI video, that was changed as most had none of those cards, and VESA standards were [by then] supported in the PCI/AGP video and BIOS. For newer computers, without floppies and/or with in BIOS flash, these issues have once again become at issue when motherboards are flashed. It appears when flashing these boards, ANY error becomes difficult or nearly impossible to recover from. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:02:49 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> Franc Zabkar wrote: > >>> My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to >>> ATA-33. >> >> OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, >> specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean >> technically, >> from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like the >> example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 interleaving >> ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk >> problem) > > AFAIK it's the chipset (SiS 5597/5598) that is the limitation. > > The chipset datasheet states that its "Fast PCI IDE Master/Slave > Controller" supports ... > > - IDE PIO Timing Mode 0, 1, 2 ,3 and 4 > - Multiword DMA Mode 0, 1, 2 > - Ultra DMA/33 > > See http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/3078981.pdf Wonder if there is aome updated driver available for that chipset? Seems I did something like that for some Intel chips on my MB, at one time, but I can't remember now. (Like maybe I initially didn't have Ultra DMA available, and I had to update some drivers to get it (it's been too long to recall).
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:51:55 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Franc Zabkar wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:02:49 -0600, "Bill in Co." >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>> Franc Zabkar wrote: >> >>>> My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to >>>> ATA-33. >>> >>> OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, >>> specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean >>> technically, >>> from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like the >>> example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 interleaving >>> ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk >>> problem) >> >> AFAIK it's the chipset (SiS 5597/5598) that is the limitation. >> >> The chipset datasheet states that its "Fast PCI IDE Master/Slave >> Controller" supports ... >> >> - IDE PIO Timing Mode 0, 1, 2 ,3 and 4 >> - Multiword DMA Mode 0, 1, 2 >> - Ultra DMA/33 >> >> See http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/3078981.pdf > >Wonder if there is aome updated driver available for that chipset? > >Seems I did something like that for some Intel chips on my MB, at one time, >but I can't remember now. (Like maybe I initially didn't have Ultra DMA >available, and I had to update some drivers to get it (it's been too long to >recall). It's not a driver limitation. It's an electronic limitation of the chipset. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:51:55 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> Franc Zabkar wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:02:49 -0600, "Bill in Co." >>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >>> >>>> Franc Zabkar wrote: >>> >>>>> My drive supports ATA-66 but my old socket 7 motherboard is limited to >>>>> ATA-33. >>>> >>>> OK, but just out of curiosity, what is it about that motherboard, >>>> specifically, that limits it - if you happen to know? (I mean >>>> technically, >>>> from the hardware and/or software point of view). (You know, like >>>> the >>>> example I gave of needing 80 conductor cables (using the 40 >>>> interleaving >>>> ground wires) for higher data transfer rates to prevent the crosstalk >>>> problem) >>> >>> AFAIK it's the chipset (SiS 5597/5598) that is the limitation. >>> >>> The chipset datasheet states that its "Fast PCI IDE Master/Slave >>> Controller" supports ... >>> >>> - IDE PIO Timing Mode 0, 1, 2 ,3 and 4 >>> - Multiword DMA Mode 0, 1, 2 >>> - Ultra DMA/33 >>> >>> See http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/3078981.pdf >> >> Wonder if there is aome updated driver available for that chipset? >> >> Seems I did something like that for some Intel chips on my MB, at one >> time, >> but I can't remember now. (Like maybe I initially didn't have Ultra >> DMA >> available, and I had to update some drivers to get it (it's been too long >> to >> recall). > > It's not a driver limitation. It's an electronic limitation of the > chipset. OK. At least in my case, I had thought I had updated some Intel driver(s) that enabled some additional features or capabilities of some chipset I had on my Motherboard. But maybe that is impossible, and I'm misrembering it. So let me ask this question then, since I don't fully understand it. Isn't it possible that some chipsets CAN have new software drivers that can enable additional features, provided the manufacturer of the chipset allowed for such upgrading? But your chipset may be older than mine, too. (I have a Dell 4100, circa 2000, as I recall)
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:28:06 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >I had thought I had updated some Intel driver(s) >that enabled some additional features or capabilities of some chipset I had >on my Motherboard. > >But maybe that is impossible, and I'm misrembering it. So let me ask this >question then, since I don't fully understand it. Isn't it possible that >some chipsets CAN have new software drivers that can enable additional >features, provided the manufacturer of the chipset allowed for such >upgrading? Yes it's possible, and it's also possible to enable additional chipset features via the BIOS. In fact I've tweaked various chipset registers from within Windows using WPCREDIT and WPCRSET. IIRC this gave me a 10% performance increase in my RAM benchmarks. See ... Chipset BIOS tweaking the M571: http://www.m571.com/m571/tweek.htm >But your chipset may be older than mine, too. (I have a Dell 4100, circa >2000, as I recall) Mine dates back to around 1998. This URL seems to itemise your chipset components: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Gentoo_on_Dell_Inspiron_4100 If you feel like tweaking or just viewing your chipset registers, then I suggest you find the datasheets for Intel's 82830 and 82801 north and southbridges and then experiment with WPCREDIT. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS Franc Zabkar wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:28:06 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > >> I had thought I had updated some Intel driver(s) >> that enabled some additional features or capabilities of some chipset I >> had >> on my Motherboard. >> >> But maybe that is impossible, and I'm misrembering it. So let me ask >> this >> question then, since I don't fully understand it. Isn't it possible >> that >> some chipsets CAN have new software drivers that can enable additional >> features, provided the manufacturer of the chipset allowed for such >> upgrading? > > Yes it's possible, and it's also possible to enable additional chipset > features via the BIOS. In fact I've tweaked various chipset registers > from within Windows using WPCREDIT and WPCRSET. IIRC this gave me a > 10% performance increase in my RAM benchmarks. > > See ... > > Chipset BIOS tweaking the M571: > http://www.m571.com/m571/tweek.htm > >> But your chipset may be older than mine, too. (I have a Dell 4100, circa >> 2000, as I recall) > > Mine dates back to around 1998. > > This URL seems to itemise your chipset components: > http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Gentoo_on_Dell_Inspiron_4100 > > If you feel like tweaking or just viewing your chipset registers, then > I suggest you find the datasheets for Intel's 82830 and 82801 north > and southbridges and then experiment with WPCREDIT. > > - Franc Zabkar OK, thanks for the info, Frank.
Guest EJ Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS i purchased an ACER notebook, model 5420, and there is a known problem of Black Screen that appears during use which freezes the computer. apparently, the solution is to "flash the bios". i have never done anything like this before. is this a process i can do without terminal consequences? i have downloaded a zip drive that supposedly contains the fix for this problem. can someone refer me to a link or instruction of how to flash the bios and how to apply the information in the zip drive? much appreciated. i am using vista. -- EJ "Bill in Co." wrote: > Franc Zabkar wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:03:27 -0600, "Bill in Co." > > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: > > > >> Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to > >> first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. > > > > The "extended" CMOS RAM (byte 65 and above) contains various chipset > > register settings, eg memory timings, FSB settings, peripheral > > configuration info, etc. Any RAM location can have any function as > > defined by the BIOS code. For example, there is no guarantee that BIOS > > version 2 will store the SDRAM memory timings at the same CMOS RAM > > location as BIOS version 1, so one could expect a black screen during > > the first POST after a BIOS flash. Clearing the CMOS RAM and reverting > > to defaults circumvents this potential problem. > > > > - Franc Zabkar > > Thanks for that info, Frank. I think I should take a look into it a bit > more. > > And I also need to figure out how to get back to Ultra DMA Mode 5, since > that option wasn't available in this current BIOS. (Ultra DMA Mode 4 was as > high as it goes, or at least as it shows up in its config list). I'm not > sure if that means I'm stuck in Ultra Mode 4, or just that the BIOS doesn't > know any better, since I *do* know I was able to get it in the other BIOS > (i.e., the HD's support it). But this is the only BIOS version I can use, > for this specific microprocessor upgrade. > > >
Guest MEB Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Re: BIOS upgrades - reflashing the BIOS "EJ" <EJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9A0AB702-1300-40FE-811E-B891E2FA6F83@microsoft.com... | i purchased an ACER notebook, model 5420, and there is a known problem of | Black Screen that appears during use which freezes the computer. apparently, | the solution is to "flash the bios". i have never done anything like this | before. is this a process i can do without terminal consequences? i have | downloaded a zip drive that supposedly contains the fix for this problem. can | someone refer me to a link or instruction of how to flash the bios and how to | apply the information in the zip drive? much appreciated. i am using vista. | -- | EJ | | Tried the European ACER FTP site and the main, I find no files or information for the 5420. There is a 5220, 5520, 6520, 5720, 5920, 6920, 7220, and up, and no 5420. I do, however, find a number of suggestions [forums discussing the 5420] that the panam site may have one, though that requires FLASH, so you will have to try that site for your self. AS for the zip drive, do you actually mean a zip file, if so unzip with a zip file tool, or within VISTA. Check the file for viruses first, and LOOK at the supposed file before using it. MAKE sure it is ACTUALLY for your motherboard/notebook or you WILL have a new hunk of plastic and parts. Not necessarily for systems which use an IN Bios flash tool..Make sure you get the proper flash tool for the specific need/chip http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/windows/bios_flash.htm - general BIOS flash page http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/windows/flash_keyboard.htm - BIOS autoflash disk for problem systems -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ | "Bill in Co." wrote: | | > Franc Zabkar wrote: | > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:03:27 -0600, "Bill in Co." | > > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: | > > | > >> Also, sometimes it appears that *after* a flash is done, one may have to | > >> first load its defaults BEFORE trying to reconfigure it for your system. | > > | > > The "extended" CMOS RAM (byte 65 and above) contains various chipset | > > register settings, eg memory timings, FSB settings, peripheral | > > configuration info, etc. Any RAM location can have any function as | > > defined by the BIOS code. For example, there is no guarantee that BIOS | > > version 2 will store the SDRAM memory timings at the same CMOS RAM | > > location as BIOS version 1, so one could expect a black screen during | > > the first POST after a BIOS flash. Clearing the CMOS RAM and reverting | > > to defaults circumvents this potential problem. | > > | > > - Franc Zabkar | > | > Thanks for that info, Frank. I think I should take a look into it a bit | > more. | > | > And I also need to figure out how to get back to Ultra DMA Mode 5, since | > that option wasn't available in this current BIOS. (Ultra DMA Mode 4 was as | > high as it goes, or at least as it shows up in its config list). I'm not | > sure if that means I'm stuck in Ultra Mode 4, or just that the BIOS doesn't | > know any better, since I *do* know I was able to get it in the other BIOS | > (i.e., the HD's support it). But this is the only BIOS version I can use, | > for this specific microprocessor upgrade. | > | > | >
Recommended Posts