Is it safe to install SP2

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a 3.0 Ghz
Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision Level 9.

Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?

Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..

John M. Hunt
10 answers Last reply
More about safe install
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "John M. Hunt" <j4362@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:P740d.11590$w%6.10664@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a 3.0
    Ghz
    > Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision Level
    9.
    >
    > Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?

    '9' is safe so go for SP2.

    > Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
    > manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..

    Do it.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Install the latest BIOS (not sure if it's 1005 or later). Be prepared
    for the workarounds if you need them (apparently it's sufficient to
    rename "UPDATE.SYS" from SP2 so anything else, just so that it's not
    used; originally, people were using the UPDATE.SYS from SP1, but it
    appears that having no UPDATE.SYS at all works as well. But do save the
    new UPDATE.SYS so that it can be restored once a bios with proper
    microcode updates becomes available).

    During installation, 1.8 gigabytes of free disk space is required. A
    bit more than half of this is freed up after installation, and more can
    be freed once you are SURE that you won't need to ever uninstall the
    upgrade.


    John M. Hunt wrote:

    > I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a 3.0 Ghz
    > Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision Level 9.
    >
    > Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?
    >
    > Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
    > manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..
    >
    > John M. Hunt
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Can you expand a little bit and explain what the Intel microcode
    issues are with SP2, and what/why people have been doing workarounds
    with the update.sys file?

    Thanks greatly.


    On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Barry Watzman
    <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

    >Install the latest BIOS (not sure if it's 1005 or later). Be prepared
    >for the workarounds if you need them (apparently it's sufficient to
    >rename "UPDATE.SYS" from SP2 so anything else, just so that it's not
    >used; originally, people were using the UPDATE.SYS from SP1, but it
    >appears that having no UPDATE.SYS at all works as well. But do save the
    >new UPDATE.SYS so that it can be restored once a bios with proper
    >microcode updates becomes available).
    >
    >During installation, 1.8 gigabytes of free disk space is required. A
    >bit more than half of this is freed up after installation, and more can
    >be freed once you are SURE that you won't need to ever uninstall the
    >upgrade.
    >
    >
    >John M. Hunt wrote:
    >
    >> I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a 3.0 Ghz
    >> Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision Level 9.
    >>
    >> Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?
    >>
    >> Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
    >> manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..
    >>
    >> John M. Hunt
    >>
    >>
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:41411692.3256492@news3.news.adelphia.net...
    > Can you expand a little bit and explain what the Intel microcode
    > issues are with SP2, and what/why people have been doing workarounds
    > with the update.sys file?

    "explain what the Intel microcode issues are with SP2" Intel and MS aren't
    sayin much.
    See:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=885626
    http://cquirke.mvps.org/sp2intel.htm

    Some of us are diligently digging for more.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    The issue is that many motherboards don't have the proper Intel
    microcode for Prescott CPUs -- either because owners hadn't kept up with
    new BIOS' (the "if it aint' broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    case it burned them), or even because the motherboard makers themselves
    had their heads up their ass (as of the release date for SP2, the
    necessary update had not been released at all for maybe half of recent
    motherboards, including a number of Asus models -- not withstanding that
    this has been coming for 8 months, and there was no excuse for what
    happened).

    The obvious solution, of course, it to install the latest BIOS on any
    motherboard that will take a Prescott (I'd argue, even if a Prescott is
    not currently installed).

    But that won't help if the latest bios from the motherboard maker still
    doesn't include the proper production microcode from Intel.

    The incompatability with the beta Intel microcode present in many
    production BIOS' is with a module called "Update.sys" in Windows.
    Initially people were replacing the SP2 Update.SYS with the one from
    SP1, but it apparently turns out that it's enough not to have ANY
    update.sys at all, so at least in most cases, you can just rename it to
    Update.sav, and then put it back to Update.sys later, after the BIOS
    problem is resolved. The problem is, if the incompatability is present,
    the system won't boot, so you need to use the recovery console, which
    most people dont' know about (if the drive is FAT32 you can boot from a
    DOS floppy or CD, but if it's NTFS, as it usually is, that won't help).

    There is a writeup on this in the MS knowledgebase. The real "fault"
    goes to the Motherboard makers who had their heads up their asses since
    January, and to users who don't update their BIOS'.


    someone@earthlink.net wrote:

    > Can you expand a little bit and explain what the Intel microcode
    > issues are with SP2, and what/why people have been doing workarounds
    > with the update.sys file?
    >
    > Thanks greatly.
    >
    >
    > On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Barry Watzman
    > <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Install the latest BIOS (not sure if it's 1005 or later). Be prepared
    >>for the workarounds if you need them (apparently it's sufficient to
    >>rename "UPDATE.SYS" from SP2 so anything else, just so that it's not
    >>used; originally, people were using the UPDATE.SYS from SP1, but it
    >>appears that having no UPDATE.SYS at all works as well. But do save the
    >>new UPDATE.SYS so that it can be restored once a bios with proper
    >>microcode updates becomes available).
    >>
    >>During installation, 1.8 gigabytes of free disk space is required. A
    >>bit more than half of this is freed up after installation, and more can
    >>be freed once you are SURE that you won't need to ever uninstall the
    >>upgrade.
    >>
    >>
    >>John M. Hunt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a 3.0 Ghz
    >>>Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision Level 9.
    >>>
    >>>Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?
    >>>
    >>>Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
    >>>manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..
    >>>
    >>>John M. Hunt
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:4142039A.8000304@neo.rr.com...
    > The issue is that many motherboards don't have the proper Intel
    > microcode for Prescott CPUs -- either because owners hadn't kept up with
    > new BIOS' (the "if it aint' broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    > case it burned them),

    That philosophy with respect to mobo BIOSs was defunct 4 years ago.

    > or even because the motherboard makers themselves
    > had their heads up their ass (as of the release date for SP2, the
    > necessary update had not been released at all for maybe half of recent
    > motherboards, including a number of Asus models -- not withstanding that
    > this has been coming for 8 months, and there was no excuse for what
    > happened).

    There is significant evidence that the mobo mfgs have NO culpability in this
    issue. There is significant evidence that it was internal MS and/or Intel
    bungling.

    > The obvious solution, of course, it to install the latest BIOS on any
    > motherboard that will take a Prescott (I'd argue, even if a Prescott is
    > not currently installed).

    Always flash the latest BIOS...just because.

    > But that won't help if the latest bios from the motherboard maker still
    > doesn't include the proper production microcode from Intel.
    >
    > The incompatability with the beta Intel microcode present in many
    > production BIOS'

    There's no indication that mobo mfgs had a beta microcode; some had NO
    Prescott microcode which worked just great in SP1 and W2K3. Many of Intel's
    own mobos didn't get the right SP2 BIOS until shortly after RTM. The BIOS
    issue was known in June.

    > is with a module called "Update.sys" in Windows.
    > Initially people were replacing the SP2 Update.SYS with the one from
    > SP1, but it apparently turns out that it's enough not to have ANY
    > update.sys at all, so at least in most cases, you can just rename it to
    > Update.sav, and then put it back to Update.sys later, after the BIOS
    > problem is resolved. The problem is, if the incompatability is present,
    > the system won't boot, so you need to use the recovery console, which
    > most people dont' know about (if the drive is FAT32 you can boot from a
    > DOS floppy or CD, but if it's NTFS, as it usually is, that won't help).

    There's another workaround. Turn off L1 & L2 cache in BIOS setup and the
    system will run DOG SLOW. But good enough until you rename update.sys then
    reenable L1 & L2 and be happy.

    > There is a writeup on this in the MS knowledgebase. The real "fault"
    > goes to the Motherboard makers who had their heads up their asses since
    > January, and to users who don't update their BIOS'.

    That assertion is OFF and there is NOT the slightest evidence it's true.

    someone@earthlink.net wrote:
    >
    > > Can you expand a little bit and explain what the Intel microcode
    > > issues are with SP2, and what/why people have been doing workarounds
    > > with the update.sys file?
    > >
    > > Thanks greatly.
    > >
    > >
    > > On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:41:18 GMT, Barry Watzman
    > > <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Install the latest BIOS (not sure if it's 1005 or later). Be prepared
    > >>for the workarounds if you need them (apparently it's sufficient to
    > >>rename "UPDATE.SYS" from SP2 so anything else, just so that it's not
    > >>used; originally, people were using the UPDATE.SYS from SP1, but it
    > >>appears that having no UPDATE.SYS at all works as well. But do save the
    > >>new UPDATE.SYS so that it can be restored once a bios with proper
    > >>microcode updates becomes available).
    > >>
    > >>During installation, 1.8 gigabytes of free disk space is required. A
    > >>bit more than half of this is freed up after installation, and more can
    > >>be freed once you are SURE that you won't need to ever uninstall the
    > >>upgrade.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>John M. Hunt wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>I have an ASUS P4P800SE motherboard running Bios 1005. The CPU is a
    3.0 Ghz
    > >>>Prescott. The intel CPU interrogator program reports CPU Revision
    Level 9.
    > >>>
    > >>>Does anyone know whether it is safe to load the SP2 update?
    > >>>
    > >>>Incidentally, I received the SP2 CD from Microsoft in a very prompt
    > >>>manner--the web site talks about 30 days for delivery..
    > >>>
    > >>>John M. Hunt
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >
    > >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:56:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    >news:4142039A.8000304@neo.rr.com...
    >> The issue is that many motherboards don't have the proper Intel
    >> microcode for Prescott CPUs -- either because owners hadn't kept up with
    >> new BIOS' (the "if it aint' broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    >> case it burned them),
    >
    >That philosophy with respect to mobo BIOSs was defunct 4 years ago.

    Why? What has changed since 2000 to justify that statement? If
    anything, some people had to do an update because of Y2K issues. That
    was then.


    >
    >> or even because the motherboard makers themselves
    >> had their heads up their ass (as of the release date for SP2, the
    >> necessary update had not been released at all for maybe half of recent
    >> motherboards, including a number of Asus models -- not withstanding that
    >> this has been coming for 8 months, and there was no excuse for what
    >> happened).
    >
    >There is significant evidence that the mobo mfgs have NO culpability in this
    >issue. There is significant evidence that it was internal MS and/or Intel
    >bungling.

    That's a plausible statement, especially for MS. Can you back it up
    with specific examples or other proof?
    >
    >> The obvious solution, of course, it to install the latest BIOS on any
    >> motherboard that will take a Prescott (I'd argue, even if a Prescott is
    >> not currently installed).
    >
    >Always flash the latest BIOS...just because.

    ... because ...

    Say you flash your wife's system. Yeah, the BIOS was "behind" and in
    fact the whole system is a bit behind by today's state of the art.
    Now, because of some leeeetle detail, your wife's system stops working
    and she can't get email, check on web sites, or do her
    brought-home-from-the-office work.

    Now what do you say to her? "But honey, Ron Reaugh told me to always
    flash the BIOS to the latest version." For her likely response, look
    up Lysistrata.

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=Lysistrata
    >
    >> But that won't help if the latest bios from the motherboard maker still
    >> doesn't include the proper production microcode from Intel.
    >>
    >> The incompatability with the beta Intel microcode present in many
    >> production BIOS'
    >
    >There's no indication that mobo mfgs had a beta microcode; some had NO
    >Prescott microcode which worked just great in SP1 and W2K3. Many of Intel's

    There are a lot of motherboard makers, and you believe you can assert
    that ALL of them are blameless in this situation? Pick a
    compatibility issue, any issue, and the newsgroups are full of
    complaints about compatibility problems.

    >own mobos didn't get the right SP2 BIOS until shortly after RTM. The BIOS
    >issue was known in June.
    >
    >> is with a module called "Update.sys" in Windows.
    >> Initially people were replacing the SP2 Update.SYS with the one from
    >> SP1, but it apparently turns out that it's enough not to have ANY
    >> update.sys at all, so at least in most cases, you can just rename it to
    >> Update.sav, and then put it back to Update.sys later, after the BIOS
    >> problem is resolved. The problem is, if the incompatability is present,
    >> the system won't boot, so you need to use the recovery console, which
    >> most people dont' know about (if the drive is FAT32 you can boot from a
    >> DOS floppy or CD, but if it's NTFS, as it usually is, that won't help).
    >
    >There's another workaround. Turn off L1 & L2 cache in BIOS setup and the
    >system will run DOG SLOW. But good enough until you rename update.sys then
    >reenable L1 & L2 and be happy.

    Glad I don't have to do this drill.
    >
    >> There is a writeup on this in the MS knowledgebase. The real "fault"
    >> goes to the Motherboard makers who had their heads up their asses since
    >> January, and to users who don't update their BIOS'.
    >
    >That assertion is OFF and there is NOT the slightest evidence it's true.

    Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
    your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Winey" <NOSPAMME@no-one-here.com> wrote in message
    news:8n45k01jiladpiqoqpaauoi851hjl2hhfs@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:56:20 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    > >news:4142039A.8000304@neo.rr.com...
    > >> The issue is that many motherboards don't have the proper Intel
    > >> microcode for Prescott CPUs -- either because owners hadn't kept up
    with
    > >> new BIOS' (the "if it aint' broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
    > >> case it burned them),
    > >
    > >That philosophy with respect to mobo BIOSs was defunct 4 years ago.
    >
    > Why? What has changed since 2000 to justify that statement?

    BIOSs work now. BIOS flashing works now. The first thing anybody is gonna
    want one to do when a problem comes up is flash the latest BIOS. The myth
    that one should only flash if there's something specific stated in the new
    BIOS that one needs is pure bull. A large percentage of what's new in a new
    BIOS version is NOT documented....a good example of that is new microcode
    which has never been documented by any mobo mfg AFAIK. Don't wait for the
    problem...preempt.

    > If
    > anything, some people had to do an update because of Y2K issues. That
    > was then.
    >
    >
    > >
    > >> or even because the motherboard makers themselves
    > >> had their heads up their ass (as of the release date for SP2, the
    > >> necessary update had not been released at all for maybe half of recent
    > >> motherboards, including a number of Asus models -- not withstanding
    that
    > >> this has been coming for 8 months, and there was no excuse for what
    > >> happened).
    > >
    > >There is significant evidence that the mobo mfgs have NO culpability in
    this
    > >issue. There is significant evidence that it was internal MS and/or
    Intel
    > >bungling.
    >
    > That's a plausible statement, especially for MS. Can you back it up
    > with specific examples or other proof?

    Intel didn't have the fixed BIOSs out for some of their mobos until after
    RTM and there are other suspicions like the issue was known in June
    but......

    In addition no one will state or may even know exactly what the previously
    existing standard was for mobo mfgs as far as microcode level goes. There
    appears to have been no one minding that store. One theory is that
    update.sys is responsible for putting the proper microcode in for XP but
    something broke that process with SP2.

    > >> The obvious solution, of course, it to install the latest BIOS on any
    > >> motherboard that will take a Prescott (I'd argue, even if a Prescott is
    > >> not currently installed).
    > >
    > >Always flash the latest BIOS...just because.
    >
    > ... because ...

    Obviously because more recent is betteer just like any device driver or SW
    update.
    There's nothing sacrosanct about a BIOS....one keeps it current just like
    any other code.

    > Say you flash your wife's system. Yeah, the BIOS was "behind" and in
    > fact the whole system is a bit behind by today's state of the art.
    > Now, because of some leeeetle detail, your wife's system stops working
    > and she can't get email, check on web sites, or do her
    > brought-home-from-the-office work.

    Flash the old version back. HOWEVER that kind of thinking is what happened
    back in 1997 and not now.

    > Now what do you say to her? "But honey, Ron Reaugh told me to always
    > flash the BIOS to the latest version." For her likely response, look
    > up Lysistrata.

    Clueless.

    > http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=Lysistrata
    > >
    > >> But that won't help if the latest bios from the motherboard maker still
    > >> doesn't include the proper production microcode from Intel.
    > >>
    > >> The incompatability with the beta Intel microcode present in many
    > >> production BIOS'
    > >
    > >There's no indication that mobo mfgs had a beta microcode; some had NO
    > >Prescott microcode which worked just great in SP1 and W2K3. Many of
    Intel's
    >
    > There are a lot of motherboard makers, and you believe you can assert
    > that ALL of them are blameless in this situation?

    Especially where most all appear to be in the same boat including INTEL!

    > Pick a
    > compatibility issue, any issue, and the newsgroups are full of
    > complaints about compatibility problems.

    HUH!

    > >own mobos didn't get the right SP2 BIOS until shortly after RTM. The
    BIOS
    > >issue was known in June.
    > >
    > >> is with a module called "Update.sys" in Windows.
    > >> Initially people were replacing the SP2 Update.SYS with the one from
    > >> SP1, but it apparently turns out that it's enough not to have ANY
    > >> update.sys at all, so at least in most cases, you can just rename it to
    > >> Update.sav, and then put it back to Update.sys later, after the BIOS
    > >> problem is resolved. The problem is, if the incompatability is
    present,
    > >> the system won't boot, so you need to use the recovery console, which
    > >> most people dont' know about (if the drive is FAT32 you can boot from a
    > >> DOS floppy or CD, but if it's NTFS, as it usually is, that won't help).
    > >
    > >There's another workaround. Turn off L1 & L2 cache in BIOS setup and the
    > >system will run DOG SLOW. But good enough until you rename update.sys
    then
    > >reenable L1 & L2 and be happy.
    >
    > Glad I don't have to do this drill.
    > >
    > >> There is a writeup on this in the MS knowledgebase. The real "fault"
    > >> goes to the Motherboard makers who had their heads up their asses since
    > >> January, and to users who don't update their BIOS'.
    > >
    > >That assertion is OFF and there is NOT the slightest evidence it's true.
    >
    > Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
    > your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?

    Clueless.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    There are only two reasons not to install a new BIOS (aside from just
    the simple fact that it takes a bit of time and effort):

    1. You may cause problems
    2. You may corrupt the bios and make the system unbootable at all

    The incidence of new BIOS update that cause additional, new problems is
    ***WAY, WAY*** down from what it used to be. I can't say that it's
    "zero", but while it was a reason not to routinely upgrade back in the
    late 1990's, at least personally I no longer feel that this is the case
    (and I build and repair quite a few computers).

    As for corrupting the bios during an upgrade, this simply has never been
    a significant issue for people who know what they are doing. Basically,
    if you use the right bios code, and you don't try to flash from within
    Windows (not withstaning that most motherboard mfgrs, including Asus,
    offer such a utility), the risk of trashing the bios is near zero.
    Problems arise when people who don't know what they are doing either use
    the wrong BIOS or try to use the Windows flash program because they
    don't know how to make a DOS boot diskette.

    In view of this, I no longer subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't
    fix it" philosophy, and when servicing a machine I generally install the
    latest available bios, whether there's an obvious need or not.

    The simple fact is, you may not need Serial ATA or a drive larger than
    137 gigs or {whatever} today, but you may need it 9 months from now.

    Also, I have seen several cases with older motherboards where the bios
    download support was removed from the manufacturers web site. Hence my
    advice to ALWAYS "get" (and save) new BIOS', even if you choose, for the
    moment, not to actually install them. A bird in the hand, as they say,
    is worth several in the bush.


    Winey wrote:


    >
    > Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
    > your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:chF0d.6956$787.4135@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > There are only two reasons not to install a new BIOS (aside from just
    > the simple fact that it takes a bit of time and effort):

    And many more reason TO install the latest BIOS.

    > 1. You may cause problems

    You are much more likely to solve a current or future problem by flashing.

    > 2. You may corrupt the bios and make the system unbootable at all

    VERY unlikely.

    > The incidence of new BIOS update that cause additional, new problems is
    > ***WAY, WAY*** down from what it used to be.

    YES, and the incidence of that new BIOS fixing things is way way up.

    > I can't say that it's
    > "zero", but while it was a reason not to routinely upgrade back in the
    > late 1990's, at least personally I no longer feel that this is the case
    > (and I build and repair quite a few computers).
    >
    > As for corrupting the bios during an upgrade, this simply has never been
    > a significant issue for people who know what they are doing. Basically,
    > if you use the right bios code, and you don't try to flash from within
    > Windows (not withstaning that most motherboard mfgrs, including Asus,
    > offer such a utility), the risk of trashing the bios is near zero.
    > Problems arise when people who don't know what they are doing either use
    > the wrong BIOS or try to use the Windows flash program because they
    > don't know how to make a DOS boot diskette.
    >
    > In view of this, I no longer subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't
    > fix it" philosophy, and when servicing a machine I generally install the
    > latest available bios, whether there's an obvious need or not.

    Most competent folks have been doing that since 1999.

    > The simple fact is, you may not need Serial ATA or a drive larger than
    > 137 gigs or {whatever} today, but you may need it 9 months from now.

    And when you need it or are experiencing some other issue then you'd rather
    not add-on a BIOS flash in the middle of that. Keep the BIOS current is the
    competent rule.

    > Also, I have seen several cases with older motherboards where the bios
    > download support was removed from the manufacturers web site. Hence my
    > advice to ALWAYS "get" (and save) new BIOS', even if you choose, for the
    > moment, not to actually install them. A bird in the hand, as they say,
    > is worth several in the bush.
    >
    >
    > Winey wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
    > > your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?
    > >
    > >
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus CPUs Motherboards