Article View: alt.comp.hardware
Article #3589Re: OEM BIOS update vs. Intel
From: Ben Myers
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:59
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:59
71 lines
4825 bytes
4825 bytes
Here's the story about Intel generic vs. OEM BIOS. Also generic vs. OEM boards. First, Intel assigns a BIOS suffix to each of its OEMs. This enables Intel to track which motherboards are OEM and which are generic. OEMs like Micron provide on-going support for any boards bought from Intel, who rightfully maintains a hands-off policy. Micron's siffix is "5". Intel also releases the BIOS in source code form to its OEMs. Some OEMs like IBM and Dell customize the BIOS extensively with their own common look and feel, but the guts of the BIOS remains essentially the same. Other OEMs like Micron, Gateway and the lamentable Packard-Bell do no real BIOS customization at all, except for a bitmap logo constructed with standard Intel developer tools (I've flashed some motherboards with my own bitmaps). Rarely is there any physical or electronic difference between OEM and generic motherboards of the same model. The differences boil down to optional features like on-board sound or not. In some cases, Intel builds a "special" motherboard with a special BIOS for one of its OEMs. The "special" motherboard is simply a variation of a standardized motherboard design with its own unique BIOS identifier. This approach to motherboard production enables Intel to produce motherboards cost effectively for its OEMs. If Intel had to engineer truly special motherboard designs for its OEMs, the cost to do so would be outrageous. Unfortunately, the only way around flashing the DT0 BIOS onto your DT05 motherboard involves hacking the BIOS, as far as I know. IFLASH checks the entire BIOS identification to make sure you are flashing the right motherboard BIOS with the right OEM suffix onto your board. This is a reasonable safeguard. If you have a programmer's text editor or some other tool, you can try to change all occurances of DT05 to DT0_ in the flash BIOS files. BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY ON YOUR OWN IF YOU TRY THIS. You run the risk of messing up the board and making it useless. Have a flash recovery diskette for the DT05 BIOS handy should you attempt to do this. You might try executing IFLASH from the DOS prompt with either no command line parameters or the quasi-standard /h or /? to see if it gives you some options like forcing an image onto the board. Flash BIOS software for earlier Intel motherboards actually had a way to force flash the BIOS, avoiding any cross-checking of BIOS IDs. Good luck! My recommendation? Stick with 1.00.03.DT05. Do you see any compelling features described in the REL_NOTE.DOC for 1.00.09.DT0_ ? Do you have any assurance that 1.00.09.DT0_ is NEWER than 1.00.03.DT05 ? Did you think that Intel does not require its OEMs to follow the same BIOS revision numbering scheme that Intel follows for its generic boards? Just a few questions... Ben Myers "Lonsway" <lonsway@home.com> wrote: >I am trying to update the BIOS on my Micron XRU PII 266mhz with the Intel >PD440FX motherboard. I'm currently running ver 1.00.03.DT05 which is the >most recent update offered by Micron. I was able to flash this without a >problem. > >Intel offers ver 1.00.09.DT0_ for the board but I cannot get it to complete >the flash process. I get an L05 error about not being able to initiate >erase. Intel's sight indicates their updates may not work on OEM boards. >Both updates use IFLASH. > >Any workarounds for how I can the the Intel version to flash? Does the DT0_ >vs. the DT05 designation have any meaning? Any help would be appreciated. >Thanks. > >
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3a9e5f1e.1494069@news.ma.ultranet.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!209.50.235.254!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.44!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mailReferences:
<MMkn6.4966$DY.2300108@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10bf1a,2543b489676e0cc9 X-Google-Attributes: gid10bf1a,public X-Google-Thread: 112149,2543b489676e0cc9 X-Google-Attributes: gid112149,public X-Google-Thread: f4d34,2543b489676e0cc9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d34,public X-Google-Thread: f5f89,2543b489676e0cc9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5f89,public X-Google-Thread: f583c,2543b489676e0cc9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf583c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-01 07:05:55 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!209.50.235.254!europa.netcrusader.net!207.172.3.44!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: benmyers@ultranet.com (Ben Myers) Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard,alt.sys.pc-clone.micron,comp.hardware,intel.motherboards.pentium_ii Subject: Re: OEM BIOS update vs. Intel Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:59:28 GMT Lines: 72 Message-ID: <3a9e5f1e.1494069@news.ma.ultranet.com> References: <MMkn6.4966$DY.2300108@news1.mntp1.il.home.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbjT8X1DAkA0j+K6sRj3SaoTEgo/JL5Dt2yAMoXmXK00RrR1ST4RJp1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2001 15:00:21 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235