If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
AMD's Cool'n'Quiet support is supposed to be natively built into Vista
(no need for drivers). However, they are finding that C'n'Q setups that were working fine under XP, no longer work under Vista. People have been waiting for BIOS updates for their motherboards, and some have found that the BIOS updates don't fix the problem. Anyways, it was all a bit mysterious, but it looks like a bit of light is finally being shown on it: it's Microsoft's fault. The Vole has very quietly dropped support for ACPI 1.0 tables in BIOS, without letting anyone know. The ACPI tables are queried by the OS to see if a particular CPU has support for power management or not. So even with a BIOS update, they may have still kept ACPI 1.0 tables, and Vista simply and quietly ignores it. ACPI 1.0 was good enough for XP, so I have no idea why it's not good enough for Vista. This just goes to highlight why secretive organizations like Microsoft should not be trusted. They do stupid random things and people have no way of finding out what's going on. On Linux, this is not likely to happen because they wouldn't be stupid enough to drop support for ACPI 1.0 tables -- they'd add support for the newer ACPI versions, but they'd retain older support too. And if somebody dropped support for something, somebody else could go into the source code and discover the problem and fix it again. People in wait state for AMD C'n'Q Vista driver http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38132 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
* YKhan:
AMD's Cool'n'Quiet support is supposed to be natively built into Vista (no need for drivers). However, they are finding that C'n'Q setups that were working fine under XP, no longer work under Vista. People have been waiting for BIOS updates for their motherboards, and some have found that the BIOS updates don't fix the problem. Anyways, it was all a bit mysterious, but it looks like a bit of light is finally being shown on it: it's Microsoft's fault. Nope, it's not. It's the fault of the mobo manufacturers that simply don't fix the crap they are selling... The Vole has very quietly dropped support for ACPI 1.0 tables in BIOS, without letting anyone know. The ACPI tables are queried by the OS to see if a particular CPU has support for power management or not. So even with a BIOS update, they may have still kept ACPI 1.0 tables, and Vista simply and quietly ignores it. ACPI 1.0 was good enough for XP, so I have no idea why it's not good enough for Vista. Microsoft has already made clear that Vista would require ACPI 2.0-compliant hardware and BIOS to work properly when they published the first specifications over a year ago. Every hardware manufacturer that got surprised by Vista RTM not supporting ACPI 1.0 any more is just an idiot. This just goes to highlight why secretive organizations like Microsoft should not be trusted. They do stupid random things and people have no way of finding out what's going on. On Linux, this is not likely to happen because they wouldn't be stupid enough to drop support for ACPI 1.0 tables -- they'd add support for the newer ACPI versions, but they'd retain older support too. And if somebody dropped support for something, somebody else could go into the source code and discover the problem and fix it again. Yeah, sure. Happy little Linux world. Tell that the people that for example can't get their notebooks to work with everything under Linux. For example card readers are still prone to make trouble with Linux. But in this case of course it's not Linux fault but the hardware manufacturers who don't provide Linux support. Only when Microsoft is involved it has to be different of course... Benjamin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 9, 2:33 pm, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
The Vole has very quietly dropped support for ACPI 1.0 tables in BIOS, without letting anyone know. The ACPI tables are queried by the OS to see if a particular CPU has support for power management or not. So even with a BIOS update, they may have still kept ACPI 1.0 tables, and Vista simply and quietly ignores it. ACPI 1.0 was good enough for XP, so I have no idea why it's not good enough for Vista. Microsoft has already made clear that Vista would require ACPI 2.0-compliant hardware and BIOS to work properly when they published the first specifications over a year ago. Every hardware manufacturer that got surprised by Vista RTM not supporting ACPI 1.0 any more is just an idiot. Yet, somehow, the beta and RC versions of Vista were all supporting and working with ACPI 1.0, right up until the end. Why disable such a fundamental feature in the final version but leave them enabled in the beta versions? You have all of these beta-testers reporting back to MS that everything seems to be working fine, and then little do they know that MS is planning to change at least one other thing without going through a beta process. What's the point of doing betas, then? These testers would've likely caught the problem, and Microsoft or the mobo makers would've issued fixes beforehand. This just goes to highlight why secretive organizations like Microsoft should not be trusted. They do stupid random things and people have no way of finding out what's going on. On Linux, this is not likely to happen because they wouldn't be stupid enough to drop support for ACPI 1.0 tables -- they'd add support for the newer ACPI versions, but they'd retain older support too. And if somebody dropped support for something, somebody else could go into the source code and discover the problem and fix it again. Yeah, sure. Happy little Linux world. Tell that the people that for example can't get their notebooks to work with everything under Linux. And that is somehow Linux's fault? The hardware vendors that did provide support for in Linux works without problems. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
Wait till you discover that Vista does not use NTLDR any more either.
Vista uses BOOTMGR instead and if you install Vista onto a computer with more than just one hard drive in it, Vista will load BOOTMGR pretty well wherever it likes. Not really much of a problem unless you clone your "C" drive and BOOTMGR is not on it. "Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message ... * YKhan: AMD's Cool'n'Quiet support is supposed to be natively built into Vista (no need for drivers). However, they are finding that C'n'Q setups that were working fine under XP, no longer work under Vista. People have been waiting for BIOS updates for their motherboards, and some have found that the BIOS updates don't fix the problem. Anyways, it was all a bit mysterious, but it looks like a bit of light is finally being shown on it: it's Microsoft's fault. Nope, it's not. It's the fault of the mobo manufacturers that simply don't fix the crap they are selling... The Vole has very quietly dropped support for ACPI 1.0 tables in BIOS, without letting anyone know. The ACPI tables are queried by the OS to see if a particular CPU has support for power management or not. So even with a BIOS update, they may have still kept ACPI 1.0 tables, and Vista simply and quietly ignores it. ACPI 1.0 was good enough for XP, so I have no idea why it's not good enough for Vista. Microsoft has already made clear that Vista would require ACPI 2.0-compliant hardware and BIOS to work properly when they published the first specifications over a year ago. Every hardware manufacturer that got surprised by Vista RTM not supporting ACPI 1.0 any more is just an idiot. This just goes to highlight why secretive organizations like Microsoft should not be trusted. They do stupid random things and people have no way of finding out what's going on. On Linux, this is not likely to happen because they wouldn't be stupid enough to drop support for ACPI 1.0 tables -- they'd add support for the newer ACPI versions, but they'd retain older support too. And if somebody dropped support for something, somebody else could go into the source code and discover the problem and fix it again. Yeah, sure. Happy little Linux world. Tell that the people that for example can't get their notebooks to work with everything under Linux. For example card readers are still prone to make trouble with Linux. But in this case of course it's not Linux fault but the hardware manufacturers who don't provide Linux support. Only when Microsoft is involved it has to be different of course... Benjamin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 9, 3:34 pm, "Venom" wrote:
Wait till you discover that Vista does not use NTLDR any more either. Vista uses BOOTMGR instead and if you install Vista onto a computer with more than just one hard drive in it, Vista will load BOOTMGR pretty well wherever it likes. Not really much of a problem unless you clone your "C" drive and BOOTMGR is not on it. Also here's something else that's interesting. It looks like Vista (at least the Home Premium) has an upper limit on the number of windows you can open up, just 52 with Aero (and just 54 without). Fudzilla - Vista has limit of 52 opened windows http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=94&Itemi d=1 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
* YKhan:
Microsoft has already made clear that Vista would require ACPI 2.0-compliant hardware and BIOS to work properly when they published the first specifications over a year ago. Every hardware manufacturer that got surprised by Vista RTM not supporting ACPI 1.0 any more is just an idiot. Yet, somehow, the beta and RC versions of Vista were all supporting and working with ACPI 1.0, right up until the end. Why disable such a fundamental feature in the final version but leave them enabled in the beta versions? Because they were *beta* versions? It's quite common that beta versions contain things that won't be there in the final version. And it's really not that MS made a secret out of the fact that Vista RTM won't support ACPI 1.0 any more. You have all of these beta-testers reporting back to MS that everything seems to be working fine, and then little do they know that MS is planning to change at least one other thing without going through a beta process. What's the point of doing betas, then? The point is fining bugs and non-working features. Betas are *not* final code, nor contain they everything that is in the final versions. If that wouldn't be the case beta versions would be pretty useless... These testers would've likely caught the problem, and Microsoft or the mobo makers would've issued fixes beforehand. Nope. The manufacturers of these mobos were sitting on their arses for over a year while the rest of the world was already aware that ACPI 1.0 is a dead horse. Still they didn't fix their crap. Yeah, sure. Happy little Linux world. Tell that the people that for example can't get their notebooks to work with everything under Linux. And that is somehow Linux's fault? The hardware vendors that did provide support for in Linux works without problems. There are lots of examples where things don't work (especially with notebooks) even if Linux has been officially supported by the hardware manufacturer (and this also happened with big names like HP and IBM/Lenovo). But yeah, here of course it's the hardware manufacturers fault. But when mobo makers ignored the fact that Vista RTM doesn't support ACPI 1.0 any more while it was well known over a year before public release of Vista then of course it's MS fault. Benjamin |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On Mar 9, 3:27 pm, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* YKhan: snip Nope. The manufacturers of these mobos were sitting on their arses for over a year while the rest of the world was already aware that ACPI 1.0 is a dead horse. Still they didn't fix their crap. Yeah, sure. Happy little Linux world. Tell that the people that for example can't get their notebooks to work with everything under Linux. And that is somehow Linux's fault? The hardware vendors that did provide support for in Linux works without problems. There are lots of examples where things don't work (especially with notebooks) even if Linux has been officially supported by the hardware manufacturer (and this also happened with big names like HP and IBM/Lenovo). But yeah, here of course it's the hardware manufacturers fault. But when mobo makers ignored the fact that Vista RTM doesn't support ACPI 1.0 any more while it was well known over a year before public release of Vista then of course it's MS fault. Benjamin This is like a dead horse, beaten to a pulp, like a B movie I seen which showed a monster truck running over a dead vampire 10+ times. At the end you see a blood spot with an essence that their might be a come back. Just look at the news, seems a lot of people are upset at how Windows phones home even if you decline to install the software, not good. Defending a company who practices marginal ethics is not a very good position to be in. Yes the motherboard companies are to blame for bad support, but what exactly does M$ gain from leaving out backwards compatibility to ACPI 1.0? More DRM control, or some other oddball effect? Also we are talking about hardware support for cooling and reduced wattage output which many consider a very good thing to have support for. With the new kernel model; ie developers offering to help hardware companies make software drivers, which in my opinion gets rid of most excuses if the company is really serious about Open Source. Which does place the blame on hardware companies, why would I want to buy some bug ridden non-free Windows only hardware if an Open Source alternative is around? Gnu_Raiz |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
On 9 Mar 2007 12:24:46 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:
Yet, somehow, the beta and RC versions of Vista were all supporting and working with ACPI 1.0, right up until the end. Why disable such a fundamental feature in the final version but leave them enabled in the beta versions? You have all of these beta-testers reporting back to MS that everything seems to be working fine, and then little do they know that MS is planning to change at least one other thing without going through a beta process. What's the point of doing betas, then? These testers would've likely caught the problem, and Microsoft or the mobo makers would've issued fixes beforehand. Remember how it was with XP? The original release was more like 1st Beta in its quality; SP1 looked like release candidate; and only SP2 became more or less production strength soft. It's not only MS doing this - most software made by most companies out there, including the stuff written by yours truly (gotta admit this), go through these stages, some of it never even comes to production quality - Lotus Notes, to name just one. If you want to name more - look at any flavor of Linux, why the hell the end users have to edit the source code in attempt (often futile) to make things work? MS is not the worst offender out there. As for the poor Vista owners - well, they paid (or piratedLOL/) for the privilege to work for MS as beta testers ;-)))))) I am not even thinking of installing Vista before SP1 is out, unless I _need_ it for my next project. NNN |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
"YKhan" wrote in message
oups.com... Anyways, it was all a bit mysterious, but it looks like a bit of light is finally being shown on it: it's Microsoft's fault. The Vole has very quietly dropped support for ACPI 1.0 tables in BIOS, without letting anyone know. The ACPI tables are queried by the OS to see if a particular CPU has support for power management or not. So even with a BIOS update, they may have still kept ACPI 1.0 tables, and Vista simply and quietly ignores it. ACPI 1.0 was good enough for XP, so I have no idea why it's not good enough for Vista. People in wait state for AMD C'n'Q Vista driver http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38132 While I'm usually a big fan of backwards compatibility, in this case I'd say hardware manufacturers are at fault. If you desgin your products such that it requires "undocumented features" to work then you get what you deserve, burned (which has started happening more and more on the Windows platform). On the whole I'd say what Microsoft is doing is probably a positive thing. Let's face it, backwards compatibility is a source of many of their greatest troubles... i.e. allowing third party apps to patch the kernel, take over critical functionality the list goes on... While it's annoying now, in the end it'll probably ensure a better more secure project going forward. I guess I should say I'm writing this being in the uniquly lucky position of A) having a modern system (I"m an enthusiest), and B) have an MSDN subscription which was paid for me (I'm a developer). So I"m now running Vista ultimite. I have to say over all it's a great expereince. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vista disables Cool'N'Quiet on some motherboards | YKhan | General | 63 | March 22nd 07 09:50 AM |
Cool'n'Quiet? | Erland Sommarskog | Asus Motherboards | 28 | August 19th 06 08:06 PM |
k8ns-939 and cool'n'quiet | Carchidi 4 President | Gigabyte Motherboards | 3 | July 1st 05 10:57 PM |
Cool'N'Quiet and Overclocking | Ed Light | AMD x86-64 Processors | 1 | May 26th 05 10:55 PM |
Cool'N'Quiet Overclocking | Ed Light | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | May 26th 05 10:13 PM |