Is it safe to install SP2

  • Thread starter Thread starter John M. Hunt
  • Start date Start date
J

John M. Hunt

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
 
John M. Hunt said:
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?
Click to expand...

'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..
Click to expand...

Do it.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'.
 
Barry Watzman said:
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),
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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'
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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'.
Click to expand...

That assertion is OFF and there is NOT the slightest evidence it's true.
 
That philosophy with respect to mobo BIOSs was defunct 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

That's a plausible statement, especially for MS. Can you back it up
with specific examples or other proof?
Always flash the latest BIOS...just because.
Click to expand...

... 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
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
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

Glad I don't have to do this drill.
That assertion is OFF and there is NOT the slightest evidence it's true.
Click to expand...

Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?
 
Winey said:
Why? What has changed since 2000 to justify that statement?
Click to expand...

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.



That's a plausible statement, especially for MS. Can you back it up
with specific examples or other proof?
Click to expand...

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.
... because ...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Intel's

There are a lot of motherboard makers, and you believe you can assert
that ALL of them are blameless in this situation?
Click to expand...

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!


Glad I don't have to do this drill.

Let's hear it from other people in this group. Do you truly trust
your motherboard mfg to always provide 100% perfect support?
Click to expand...

Clueless.
 
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:
 
Barry Watzman said:
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):
Click to expand...

And many more reason TO install the latest BIOS.
1. You may cause problems
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top