Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BIOS upgrade on Asus A7N8X

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2005 4:35:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I'm experiencing some trouble with this upgrade, and I wonder
if you have similar experiences that could help me.

One detail that surprises me is that I get one section (two
cells on the progress bar) that reports as "No update" with
cyan cells. All the rest is reported with light-white cells,
indicating successful write to those memory ranges.

Is this normal?

The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
(the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).

It's also experiencing strange behaviour with various IDE
configurations -- for instance, if I put only one drive on
the secondary channel, the system won't boot (it takes 10 or
15 seconds to detect the drives; it finally reports them
correctly, but then the system won't boot, with a "NON
BOOTABLE DISK etc etc" message). As soon as I connect a
second device, e.g., a CD-ROM, or another drive as slave
device, the system boots like nothing.

Are these details perhaps related to a common problem? Any
ideas of what could be causing it?

Thanks,

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2005 7:10:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>
> The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
> report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
> detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
> (the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
> sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
>
Windows 2K SP3 and above can support drives greater than 137 GB, but a
registry value must be set to enable this functionality.
See: http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm

In Windows XP SP1 and higher, this step is not required.

Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2005 7:10:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>
> The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
> report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
> detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
> (the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
> sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
>
Windows 2K SP3 and above can support drives greater than 137 GB, but a
registry value must be set to enable this functionality.
See: http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm

In Windows XP SP1 and higher, this step is not required.

Robert
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2005 9:24:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:35:12 -0400, Carlos Moreno
<moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:

>
>I'm experiencing some trouble with this upgrade, and I wonder
>if you have similar experiences that could help me.
>
>One detail that surprises me is that I get one section (two
>cells on the progress bar) that reports as "No update" with
>cyan cells. All the rest is reported with light-white cells,
>indicating successful write to those memory ranges.
>
>Is this normal?

It's fairly common for a BIOS update to not update the Boot Block area.
Some mbrds used to also have a jumper to lock/unlock the Boot Block area
from updating but in that case you'd normally get a warning about it and
the flash would not proceed. Check your mbrd manual on this.

>The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
>report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
>detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
>(the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
>sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).

You mean in the Disk Management console Win 2000(?) SP4, it doesn't show
any spare space? What does Fdisk make of it?

>It's also experiencing strange behaviour with various IDE
>configurations -- for instance, if I put only one drive on
>the secondary channel, the system won't boot (it takes 10 or
>15 seconds to detect the drives; it finally reports them
>correctly, but then the system won't boot, with a "NON
>BOOTABLE DISK etc etc" message). As soon as I connect a
>second device, e.g., a CD-ROM, or another drive as slave
>device, the system boots like nothing.
>
>Are these details perhaps related to a common problem? Any
>ideas of what could be causing it?

You mean with only one drive on the secondary channel it won't boot off a
drive on the primary channel?... or are you trying to boot off the
secondary channel drive? Are you sure you have the drives jumpered
correctly?... some systems/drives really insist on cable select to work
properly at the correct speeds now - chack docs.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2005 11:52:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

>>One detail that surprises me is that I get one section (two
>>cells on the progress bar) that reports as "No update" with
>>cyan cells. All the rest is reported with light-white cells,
>>indicating successful write to those memory ranges.
>>
>>Is this normal?
>
> It's fairly common for a BIOS update to not update the Boot Block area.

Ok.

>>The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
>>report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
>>detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
>>(the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
>>sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
>
> You mean in the Disk Management console Win 2000(?) SP4, it doesn't show
> any spare space? What does Fdisk make of it?

Is there an fdisk command on Windows 2000?? (I just tried
it from a console, and it says "command not recognized").

On the My Computer -> Right-click -> Manage -> Disk Management,
yes, the drive is reported as a 128.0GB drive. When I try to
create a partition, it limits the size to 131.xx MB -- if I
type a number higher than that, the "NEXT" button is disabled.

>>It's also experiencing strange behaviour with various IDE
>>configurations -- for instance, if I put only one drive on
>>the secondary channel, the system won't boot (it takes 10 or
>>15 seconds to detect the drives; it finally reports them
>>correctly, but then the system won't boot, with a "NON
>>BOOTABLE DISK etc etc" message). As soon as I connect a
>>second device, e.g., a CD-ROM, or another drive as slave
>>device, the system boots like nothing.
>>
>>Are these details perhaps related to a common problem? Any
>>ideas of what could be causing it?
>
>
> You mean with only one drive on the secondary channel it won't boot off a
> drive on the primary channel?...

That's exactly what's happening -- it first experiences a
15 or 20 seconds delay detecting IDE devices; it finally
does detect them right, but then, as soon as it continues
the boot-up process, it reports "NON BOOTABLE DISK FOUND,
INSERT A BOOTABLE DISK AND PRESS ENTER" (well, or whatever
the exact wording is)

The primary channel has two drives -- one configured as
master, one as slave. The secondary has one drive as
master, and one CD-ROM as slave; if I disconnect the
CD-ROM, I get the above behaviour; I turn off, connect
the cable to the CD-ROM and the machine boots as usual.
(I'm using 80-wire cable for both channels, if that could
make any difference).

It's really puzzling -- that's why this, combined with
the other minor red flag that I didn't understand made
me think if it could be a "rotten BIOS" (or something
along those lines).

Thanks,

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2005 6:55:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:52:54 -0400, Carlos Moreno
<moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>>One detail that surprises me is that I get one section (two
>>>cells on the progress bar) that reports as "No update" with
>>>cyan cells. All the rest is reported with light-white cells,
>>>indicating successful write to those memory ranges.
>>>
>>>Is this normal?
>>
>> It's fairly common for a BIOS update to not update the Boot Block area.
>
>Ok.
>
>>>The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
>>>report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
>>>detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
>>>(the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
>>>sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
>>
>> You mean in the Disk Management console Win 2000(?) SP4, it doesn't show
>> any spare space? What does Fdisk make of it?
>
>Is there an fdisk command on Windows 2000?? (I just tried
>it from a console, and it says "command not recognized").

No you'd have to get it from Microsoft's Web site - the released versions
of fdisk with Win98SE were limited to ~64GB but there is a download here
with a fix: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263044
though you'd need a Win98 system to install it on - not sure what the file
names actually mean in the decompressed file.

>On the My Computer -> Right-click -> Manage -> Disk Management,
>yes, the drive is reported as a 128.0GB drive. When I try to
>create a partition, it limits the size to 131.xx MB -- if I
>type a number higher than that, the "NEXT" button is disabled.

Looks like Robert Inkol has a solution to this.

>>>It's also experiencing strange behaviour with various IDE
>>>configurations -- for instance, if I put only one drive on
>>>the secondary channel, the system won't boot (it takes 10 or
>>>15 seconds to detect the drives; it finally reports them
>>>correctly, but then the system won't boot, with a "NON
>>>BOOTABLE DISK etc etc" message). As soon as I connect a
>>>second device, e.g., a CD-ROM, or another drive as slave
>>>device, the system boots like nothing.
>>>
>>>Are these details perhaps related to a common problem? Any
>>>ideas of what could be causing it?
>>
>>
>> You mean with only one drive on the secondary channel it won't boot off a
>> drive on the primary channel?...
>
>That's exactly what's happening -- it first experiences a
>15 or 20 seconds delay detecting IDE devices; it finally
>does detect them right, but then, as soon as it continues
>the boot-up process, it reports "NON BOOTABLE DISK FOUND,
>INSERT A BOOTABLE DISK AND PRESS ENTER" (well, or whatever
>the exact wording is)
>
>The primary channel has two drives -- one configured as
>master, one as slave. The secondary has one drive as
>master, and one CD-ROM as slave; if I disconnect the
>CD-ROM, I get the above behaviour; I turn off, connect
>the cable to the CD-ROM and the machine boots as usual.
>(I'm using 80-wire cable for both channels, if that could
>make any difference).

Is the single drive on the secondary channel on the end of the cable? The
80-wire cables were supposed to be used with cable select as I understand
things though I've found they have *usually* worked with master/slave
jumpering. Sorry, can't think of anything else here.

You might try BootitNG from www.bootitng.com (trial download) to see what
it makes of the configuration. It's also a very useful partitioning
utility - just cancel the install of the boot manager and you can run the
partitioning utility off the floppy.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
April 4, 2005 1:03:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

robert.inkol@rogers.com wrote:
:: The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
:: report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
:: detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
:: (the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
:: sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
::
: Windows 2K SP3 and above can support drives greater than 137 GB,
: but a registry value must be set to enable this functionality.
: See: http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm

Robert correct me if I am wrong but I believe you do not have to make this
reg entry under SP4. True?

J.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 4, 2005 6:26:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

jack wrote:

> robert.inkol@rogers.com wrote:
> :: The system boots and runs (apparently) fine, and it does
> :: report BIOS rev. 1010 right at boot-up time, but the one
> :: detail I was trying to fix wasn't fixed by the upgrade
> :: (the MB still doesn't see drives larger than 137GB -- it
> :: sees them, but Win SP4 only sees the first 137GB).
> ::
> : Windows 2K SP3 and above can support drives greater than 137 GB,
> : but a registry value must be set to enable this functionality.
> : See: http://www.48bitlba.com/enablebiglba.htm
>
> Robert correct me if I am wrong but I believe you do not have to make this
> reg entry under SP4. True?

I did (have to, with SP4).

The curious thing about my experience is that Windows 2000
SP4 without any modification recognized 200GB drives, as long
as they're connected through the PCI controller card; the
one I connect through the MB's IDE channels, that one is
seen as 137GB only; and even funnier: if the drive already
contains partitions exceeding 137GB -- that were created
while the drive was connected to the PCI card --, then it
is seen as 200GB...

All of those strange details disappeared as soon as I added
the Registry entry.

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2005 10:39:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:35:12 -0400, Carlos Moreno
<moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

>It's also experiencing strange behaviour with various IDE
>configurations -- for instance, if I put only one drive on
>the secondary channel, the system won't boot (it takes 10 or
>15 seconds to detect the drives; it finally reports them
>correctly, but then the system won't boot, with a "NON
>BOOTABLE DISK etc etc" message). As soon as I connect a
>second device, e.g., a CD-ROM, or another drive as slave
>device, the system boots like nothing.

Some drives can be configured as either "master without slave" or
"master with slave present".


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
!