Upgrading the MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI Bios

[Guest]

I just spent the weekend from hell trying to figure out what was wrong with
this computer that I just built, It consist of these components.

MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI Motherboard
MS Windows XP Professional sp2
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester core)
1 gigabyte Corsair TWINX1024-3200XL XMS XPERT Memory
2x 74 Gigabyte Western Digital Raptor 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0 srtipe)
1 Seagate 40 Gigabyte 7200 rpm Backup HDD
2x Nvidia Geforce 6800 PCI express cards in SLI configuration
Plextor PX-716A DVD writer
Themaltake Big Water CPU water cooling kit
Lian LI PC-V1200 (Modified window kit) Case

Once I got everything hooked up and got windows xp pro loaded everything
worked fine until I used MSI windows update utility that came with the
drivers CD to update the bios from ver 3.0 to 3.4. After that I couldn't get
the computer to shut down properly and I did everything that I know of to
figure out why it wasn't shutting down the way it was suppose to. I first
tried to disconnect the Seagate backup drive, then I disconnected the 2nd
DVD-ROM drive that I installed from my old computer then I tried switching
from windows xp pro to windows xp home edition but nothing worked until I
manually flashed to bios back from ver 3.4 to the original 3.0 and then
everything worked like it should and It took me all weekend to find the
problem. I didn't think that there would be a problem in jumping the bios
version from 3.0 to 3.4 but I guess I was wrong, my question is, Do you have
to upgrade the Bios from the original 3.0 to the current version 3.4 in
numerical order?. Your prompt replies will be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[kony]

I just spent the weekend from hell trying to figure out what was wrong with
this computer that I just built, It consist of these components.

MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI Motherboard
MS Windows XP Professional sp2
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester core)
1 gigabyte Corsair TWINX1024-3200XL XMS XPERT Memory
2x 74 Gigabyte Western Digital Raptor 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0 srtipe)
1 Seagate 40 Gigabyte 7200 rpm Backup HDD
2x Nvidia Geforce 6800 PCI express cards in SLI configuration
Plextor PX-716A DVD writer
Themaltake Big Water CPU water cooling kit
Lian LI PC-V1200 (Modified window kit) Case

Once I got everything hooked up and got windows xp pro loaded everything
worked fine until I used MSI windows update utility that came with the
drivers CD to update the bios from ver 3.0 to 3.4.

IMO, it's always more risky to use these types of tools.
Best bet is going to their website, manually confirming the
corrent board-bios, then flashing from DOS using a boot
floppy, bootable CDR, thumbdrive, or any of these to boot
then flashing with the file still on a (DOS-compatible,
as-in FAT/FAT32) partition.

After that I couldn't get
the computer to shut down properly and I did everything that I know of to
figure out why it wasn't shutting down the way it was suppose to. I first
tried to disconnect the Seagate backup drive, then I disconnected the 2nd
DVD-ROM drive that I installed from my old computer then I tried switching
from windows xp pro to windows xp home edition but nothing worked until I
manually flashed to bios back from ver 3.4 to the original 3.0 and then
everything worked like it should and It took me all weekend to find the
problem. I didn't think that there would be a problem in jumping the bios
version from 3.0 to 3.4 but I guess I was wrong, my question is, Do you have
to upgrade the Bios from the original 3.0 to the current version 3.4 in
numerical order?. Your prompt replies will be appreciated.

Might be wrong bios.
Might be a buggy driver.
Might be a windows flaw.
Might be buggy bios- it happens.

I would try updating as I described above, to the
intermediately-newer bios, v3.3 (or whatever- the last
before 3.4). It could be that the problem is introduced in
v3.(whatever) instead of 3.4, so you may have to stick with
3.0.

Sometimes it's useful to clean CMOS and load the defaults
after flashing the bios. In fact, it's almost always a good
idea to do that as a routine. If it does turn out to be a
bios flaw, you might email MSI with your board model,
revison, bios #s you used that worked as well as didn't, and
a concise list of the hardware installed. They can only
address issues they are aware of. I don't expect an
immediate fix from them, but it's possible they know
already- or at least given enough reports may devote some
time towards fixing it in later bios versions.

 

[dawg]

Exactly. Windows BIOS flashing is iffy. Try re-flashing the 3.4 BIOS the old
way or go back to to an earlier BIOS

 

[Nom]

I just spent the weekend from hell trying to figure out what was
wrong with this computer that I just built, It consist of these
components.
MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI Motherboard
MS Windows XP Professional sp2
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester core)
1 gigabyte Corsair TWINX1024-3200XL XMS XPERT Memory
2x 74 Gigabyte Western Digital Raptor 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0 srtipe)
1 Seagate 40 Gigabyte 7200 rpm Backup HDD
2x Nvidia Geforce 6800 PCI express cards in SLI configuration
Plextor PX-716A DVD writer
Themaltake Big Water CPU water cooling kit
Lian LI PC-V1200 (Modified window kit) Case

Once I got everything hooked up and got windows xp pro loaded
everything worked fine until I used MSI windows update utility that
came with the drivers CD to update the bios from ver 3.0 to 3.4.
After that I couldn't get the computer to shut down properly...

It's a known fault with the latest BIOS.

Flash back to v3.0 if it was working OK for you.

In future, if it ain't broke, don't fix it !

and I
did everything that I know of to figure out why it wasn't shutting
down the way it was suppose to. I first tried to disconnect the
Seagate backup drive, then I disconnected the 2nd DVD-ROM drive that
I installed from my old computer then I tried switching from windows
xp pro to windows xp home edition but nothing worked until I manually
flashed to bios back from ver 3.4 to the original 3.0 and then
everything worked like it should and It took me all weekend to find
the problem. I didn't think that there would be a problem in jumping
the bios version from 3.0 to 3.4 but I guess I was wrong, my question
is, Do you have to upgrade the Bios from the original 3.0 to the
current version 3.4 in numerical order?. Your prompt replies will be
appreciated.

Nothing to do with that - the shutdown issues are a known fault with the
latest BIOS. As above, flash back to what you were using before.

In future, don't flash the BIOS unless you *need* to.

 

[Nom]

Exactly. Windows BIOS flashing is iffy. Try re-flashing the 3.4 BIOS
the old way or go back to to an earlier BIOS

Windows BIOS flashing is just fine, providing your system is 100% stable.

It is infact the recommended flashing method for both ASUS's (ASUS
LiveUpdate) and MSI's (MSIUpdate) boards.

 

[kony]

Windows BIOS flashing is just fine, providing your system is 100% stable.

It is infact the recommended flashing method for both ASUS's (ASUS
LiveUpdate) and MSI's (MSIUpdate) boards.

In fact, Asus themselves warn not to do it for some of their
boards, unless the board had already been upgraded to a
certain bios version first.

The issue isn't necessarily whether the system is stable,
but rather whether the updater works properly, and the
(already used) bios does too.

It IS a larger risk, one that can be avoided. There's
really no good reason to use windows for anything that
doesn't require windows.

 

[Nom]

In fact, Asus themselves warn not to do it for some of their
boards, unless the board had already been upgraded to a
certain bios version first.

Yes, that was on some of the earlier none-compatible stuffs.

It's the main update method on all their new kit.

There's also the issue that certain BIOSs need >= certain versions of
AsusUpdate, so you should always use the latest version.

The issue isn't necessarily whether the system is stable,
but rather whether the updater works properly, and the
(already used) bios does too.

Um, both of which equally apply, however you choose to flash ! A duff BIOS
and/or a duff flash tool is gonna cause problems whatever OS you choose to
use !

It IS a larger risk, one that can be avoided.

It clearly offers the same risk.
There's no inherent reason that flashing in Windows is any riskier than
flashing in DOS. You're putting the same data onto the same flash chips in
the same way - the only difference is the actual executable flashing file.

There's
really no good reason to use windows for anything that
doesn't require windows.

But you're *already* using Windows. It clearly takes a lot more time and
work to reboot into a seperate operating system, just for the purposes of
BIOS fiddling !

 

[David Maynard]

Yes, that was on some of the earlier none-compatible stuffs.

It's the main update method on all their new kit.

There's also the issue that certain BIOSs need >= certain versions of
AsusUpdate, so you should always use the latest version.




Um, both of which equally apply, however you choose to flash ! A duff BIOS
and/or a duff flash tool is gonna cause problems whatever OS you choose to
use !




It clearly offers the same risk.
There's no inherent reason that flashing in Windows is any riskier than
flashing in DOS. You're putting the same data onto the same flash chips in
the same way - the only difference is the actual executable flashing file.

Not true. DOS is an infinitely simpler and cleaner environment with nothing
else going on but the one task at hand, the flash. As such there is no risk
of an unexpected interaction from lord only knows what else is running
because, unlike the Windows environment, there isn't anything else.

 

[JAD]

Yes, that was on some of the earlier none-compatible stuffs.

It's the main update method on all their new kit.

There's also the issue that certain BIOSs need >= certain versions of
AsusUpdate, so you should always use the latest version.


Um, both of which equally apply, however you choose to flash ! A duff BIOS
and/or a duff flash tool is gonna cause problems whatever OS you choose to
use !


It clearly offers the same risk.
There's no inherent reason that flashing in Windows is any riskier than
flashing in DOS. You're putting the same data onto the same flash chips in
the same way - the only difference is the actual executable flashing file.

If you use common sense its ok..If your going to flash the bios on Friday @
8:00pm make sure the AV scan is turned off. ;^0...... Its much safer to
take the time to boot to dos and the only thing that will catch you is a
power hiccup.

But you're *already* using Windows. It clearly takes a lot more time and
work to reboot into a seperate operating system, just for the purposes of
BIOS fiddling !

fiddling with the bios is like fiddling with heart surgery

 

[kony]

If you use common sense its ok..If your going to flash the bios on Friday @
8:00pm make sure the AV scan is turned off. ;^0...... Its much safer to
take the time to boot to dos and the only thing that will catch you is a
power hiccup.

No, those who previously had problems were using "common
sense" in many cases. The fact of the matter is, it is more
risky.

The DOS update tool is the standard for doing it, written by
the bios creators themselves, NOT merely the bios modifier,
(the board manufacturer) and further, the board manufacturer
is then writing (or paying 3rd party to write) this
additional brand-specific windows code. There are more
variables in addition to an inherantly less fixed and stable
environment when using windows.

fiddling with the bios is like fiddling with heart surgery

That's just what someone is doing when they take the lazy
way out and do a windows flash. Plenty of software that's
"supposed" to work right, ends up not working right for a
certain percentage of people, due to windows (a variable)
and other software (another variable) or the updater (a 3rd
variable) or the bios itself, later preventing boot to
windows for the reflash.

If someone assumes the risk in doing it from windows- so be
it, it is their call to make. Even so, recognize it for
what it is, a higher-risk flashing method.

 

[JAD]

No, those who previously had problems were using "common
sense" in many cases. The fact of the matter is, it is more
risky.

No, those who previously had problems 'thought' they were using common
sense....its not a 'mountain' just a mole hill. Done flashing via windows
many times...I rather (my preference, my opinion, to do it in dos.)

 

[kony]

No, those who previously had problems 'thought' they were using common
sense....its not a 'mountain' just a mole hill. Done flashing via windows
many times...I rather (my preference, my opinion, to do it in dos.)

.... as do you "think" you're using common sense.
The fact of the matter is, for those who had the process
fail, their "sense" and method was the same as yours. Only
AFTER reports of failures do warning get posted about it-
forseeing the problem before users did, the problems
wouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[JAD]

... as do you "think" you're using common sense.
The fact of the matter is, for those who had the process
fail, their "sense" and method was the same as yours. Only
AFTER reports of failures do warning get posted about it-
forseeing the problem before users did, the problems
wouldn't have happened in the first place.

No your making a mountain out of a mole hill.. as usual

 

[kony]

No your making a mountain out of a mole hill.. as usual

To a certain extent, yes. Then again, should anyone not
able to boot to DOS really be considered competent to flash
a bios, or given whatever the risk, who is to decide it's a
low enough risk for *someone else* to take.

Most people don't flash their bios very often, and they
don't recover so well from mishaps. Taking a few extra
seconds to simply boot to DOS is not a bad idea, and IS
safer even if you dispute how large a mole hill is.

 

[JAD]

To a certain extent, yes. Then again, should anyone not
able to boot to DOS really be considered competent to flash
a bios, or given whatever the risk, who is to decide it's a
low enough risk for *someone else* to take.

Most people don't flash their bios very often, and they

The people who just do it, because its there.. scare me...

don't recover so well from mishaps. Taking a few extra
seconds to simply boot to DOS is not a bad idea, and IS
safer even if you dispute how large a mole hill is.

I said that in 1 line ............maybe 2