Systems with an incorrect BIOS level may not function after XP SP2

[Greg Lirette [MSFT]]

Microsoft and Intel have been made aware that some systems appear to have an invalid configuration. This configuration may result in issues after Windows XP SP2 is installed.





If your machine is using Intel Prescott processors, the BIOS on the machine may have not supplied an appropriate (production - level) microcode update for your processor(s). You will need to get an updated BIOS for your machine that supplies at least the minimum production level microcode update as shown in the table below (contact your machine vendor if necessary). The machine should not have been shipped with less that these minimum (production level) microcode updates provided in the machine's BIOS.



Family 15 (0xF), model 3, stepping 4: Must have a microcode update signature of at least 8. Latest microcode update signature is E.



Family 15 (0xF), model 3, stepping 3: Must have a microcode update signature of at least 7. Latest microcode update signature is B.



Family 15 (0xF), model 3, stepping 2: Must have a microcode update signature of at least 7. Latest microcode update signature is A.



Check your processor details using the utility from Intel:



http://support.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/



The field reported as "Revision" is the microcode update signature.



After you install correct BIOS on your machine, the machine will then boot up and your install should proceed.



The best advice is to run the frequencyid utility from Intel before installing XP SP2. If your processor does not have a revision of at least the minimum shown in the table above, get a new BIOS for your machine and then run the frequency utility again.



An installation of Windows XP SP2 should not be attempted if you are affected by this and do not have the correct BIOS installed.



This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Sound advice though the IP doesn't match an internal MS address and the
email provided doesn't correspond with the format of my MS contacts.

Even if this is an imitation, this information is correct. It has also
been posted by Cari (MS-MVP) already as well as a workaround in case you
installed SP2 and need to uninstall it or to install SP2 with a machine
that doesn't have an update and doesn't meet the requirements.

 

[Jerry Bryant [MSFT]]

I can vouch for Greg and his post. Need to verify who I am? Just ask Cari or
any other MVP ;-)

BTW, I would like to thank MVPs like Cari for their deligence in addressing
this issue.
--
Regards,

Jerry Bryant - MCSE, MCDBA
Microsoft IT Communities

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

That's alright, I am just weary of impersonations after spending the
last few months in the SP2 Beta newsgroups (poor Mike was the victim
everywhere you looked).

Glad to hear the issue has been uncovered and action has been taken to
fix it (at least providing suggested remedies). Just out of curiosity,
is this going to be available in the KB Articles?

 

[Cari \(MS MVP\)]

They're working on it right now! Give 'em a chance, it's been a very long
week and a half!

 

[Greg Lirette [MSFT]]

I am also working on a KB but wanted to get that post out there for now. By
the way the IP address of the post was an internal address, not sure why you
thought otherwise.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

You are right, I'm used to seeing the 213.199.128.x addresses. I should
have read the whole header instead of just showing IP

I didn't mean to offend anyone, just the mixture of sleepiness and tired
of imitators got to me