(e-mail address removed)2.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:39:11 PM UTC-4, (e-mail address removed)2.com wrote: >> On Monday, March 25, 2013 7:46:30 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > (e-mail address removed)2.com wrote: > On Monday, March 25, 2013 1:05:56 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: >> (e-mail address removed)2.com wrote: >> >>> This is getting too much for me. (I'll have to read that over several more times). >>> I can't see why backing up a BIOS twice using the exact same steps would result in any differences between the files unless there was somecorruption involved. (That at least would make sense). >>> Darren Harris >>> Staten Island, New York. >> >> >> The making of BAK1.bin is for emergencies. It is for, if you >> >> get half way through flashing 1.16 and you're having problems. >> >> You must not shut down, until you know a good BIOS flash has happened. >> >> You could flash BAK1.bin back into the BIOS chip, if the 1.16 version >> >> of file was not working. >> >> >> >> The making of BAK2.bin, is for comparison to BAK1.bin. If both >> >> files were the same, then you know the BIOS flash operation >> >> did not happen. If BAK1.binand BAK2.bin are different, then >> >> something got updated. >> >> >> >> I gave instructions as well, as to how to analyse a BIOS and >> >> extract any text inside it. The text will include attempts >> >> to place a date inside the BIOS. That's if you wanted to >> >> do a more detailed analysis ofany of the BIOS files you have >> >> on hand. >> >> >> >> Award 6.00 is not the BIOS revision. You look for information >> >> presented on the first BIOS screen (POST), for information >> >> about the version. In odd cases, the BIOS developer forgets to >> >> change the version strings. There should be a "BIOS string" >> >> on the screen, which contains unique identification. >> >> >> >> Paul > > Via evidently thought it unnecessary to include such information, just like there is not a label on the BIOS chip, there is not reference to the version in BIOS. > > I'll study what you wrote about analyzing the BIOS to see if I can do that. > > But the bottom l ine is thateither way, the issues with this motherboard will not be corrected, since it will either still have the same BIOS version because it A) doesn't really update or B) there is no later BIOS version than what I already had. > > Or > > The motherboard did get updated with a newer BIOS version that stillhas not corrected the problems. > > Thanks. > > Darren Harris > Staten Island, New York. If I had your mini-ITX, I'd have to weigh... 1) Does the CPUhave enough horsepower to *ever* be the multimedia machine you hope for ? 2) The built-in GPU is marginal in terms of feature set. You know that already. 3) You might try a PCI video card, which has support for decoding acceleration for video. I see some HD5450 cards for PCI for example. (Assuming you have an open PCI slot. HD5450 doesn't draw much power.) But before spending the money, you'd need to do a bit of research to see how much CPU is needed. The latest video decoders on Nvidia and ATI video cards are pretty good (almost complete decoder), so for *popular* movie formats, they should do most all of the work. For some other non-Hollywood standards, I wouldn'tbe able to offer any guarantees (DIVX?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVD Cedar Radeоn HD 5400 Series UVD 2.2 (The HD5450 kinda gets kicked to the curb here... Pick something better, if you can afford the power dissipation.)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2931/4 If you had a PCI Express slot, you'd have more choices for video cards. As far as the form factor goes, I think there were some mini-ITX sized designs, with non-VIA hardware on them (from Zotac), which might make a pretty decent base for an HTPC. Some of those had Intel processors, and could likely decode completely in software (i..e. more horsepower). HTH, Paul The Mini-ITX only has a single PCI slot, but I definitely won't be buying anything else for this machine. (Cheap low profile pci cards are difficult to come by anyway). I don't knwow what you mean by multimedia machi ne, but I only want to be able to do the basics that any pc should be able to do. (Play DVDs and a variety of video file formats from my hard drive. (Stuff I could do with a 450Mhz machine 15 years ago). I'll be attempting to figure out the BIOS version as per your instructions. Someone also gave me this link:
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000234.htm Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. > > In the registryI still see the same date(5/19/04). > > Other information is as follows: VT9174-42302e31 Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG PH... > > Ok. I read what you wrote several times and correct me if I'm wrong but this method of comparing the BIOS back ups don't reveal whether a BIOS was updated. But it confirms whether or not the updating process works. > > So to make this simple, I have to A) make a back-up copy the BIOS. B) Update" the BIOS. Re-boot and make a second copy of the BIOS. (Bascially, I'm comparing BIOS #1 to BIOS #2, which should be different is there is an update and reboot between them). >> Is this right? > > Darren Harris > Staten Island,New York. Yes, this is one way to do it. Viewing the BIOS string on the screen, during POST, is also about as effective. But we're always at the mercy of the BIOS writer - if that person doesn't update the identifiers inside the file, and re-issuesthe BIOS without changing them, then we'll never know what it is. Paul
