Many people ordering BIOS chips for A8N32-SLI Deluxe

In article . com,
says...
2. People with 4 GB of ram want to use all the ram.

Which OS are you using?

What ya think man ? 64 bit os ofcourse.

Wrong. You didn't read the flash instructions, did you?

Clearify yourself ? Or be gone ****wit.

I was plenty clear for anyone with an operating neuron. Though, I
guess that leaves you and Dimbulb out.

I flashed in dos dumbass !

That's *NOT* what you said.

Bye,

I hope mommy takes her PC back.

--
Keith

krw wrote:

In article . com,
says...
2. People with 4 GB of ram want to use all the ram.

Which OS are you using?

What ya think man ? 64 bit os ofcourse.

Wrong. You didn't read the flash instructions, did you?

Clearify yourself ? Or be gone ****wit.

I was plenty clear for anyone with an operating neuron. Though, I
guess that leaves you and Dimbulb out.

I flashed in dos dumbass !

That's *NOT* what you said.

Bye,

I hope mommy takes her PC back.


Its too bad she can't take her egg back.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Skybuck wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:21 am, "don't look" don't wrote:

Crap.I've Flashed 100 bios' on several brands of motherboard in the last 20
years. Not a single one ever went wrong.I blame 99% of bad flashes on user
ignorance.

"Skybuck" wrote in message

roups.com...




So you agree as well that flashing bioses is very dangerous.

The more reason for asus to make sure it's not required.

Yet the opposite is true, otherwise no full 4GB support.

Bye,
Skybuck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You a PC builder ?
** Yes, i have done that on numerous occasions.


How would you know if they failed if you shipped them to your users ?!
** I check all systems before i send them out (which you probably do not
do), and pack them carefully.
I even sent one to Ethiopia and it arrived in perfect condition
despite all of the handling between the planes used to get it there.
Only one "bare bones" PC failed, and it was DOA when i got it from
the vendor; UPS bouncing had ruined the motherboard. Got a replacement
in a few days.


The boards might as well have died a few months later because possible
of the flash chip failing !
** BULL****.
I have *NEVER* seen a flash chip for a PC fail for over 10 years.
Go learn the difference between beans and duckeggs.


Did you think about that ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

Skybuck wrote:

You're a dumbass.

1. I have used 4 GB successfully with Windows XP X64 Pro. (64 bit os).

What the **** do you think microsoft is using for their huge website ?

2. Dark Messiahs already benefits from 4 GB of RAM.

Bye,
Skybuck.

You are full of it; you do not know what you are talking about.
There are *no* commercial programs that "demand" over 2Gbytes because
most users (do i hear an echo here?) have 512Mbytes or less, and vendors
will not kill their program useability by using excessive RAM.
Virtual memory is done by disk swapping which slows things down
tremendously, and customers do not like their PC to run slower than the
old DOS programs.

BTW, M$ is not going to use some wimpy PCs for a website, and you
have absolutely *NO* idea as to their actual RAM useage (and they will
never tell anyone either).

Now, in true, pure DOS, one can buy an extender that allows one to
run 32-bit programs that can access most of 4Gbyte of RAM (the balance,
natch is the OS and the program that manages the memory).

* Marcel Overweel:

Benjamin from Germany (a country suffering from the very bad and ignorant
driving habits of people with "NL" on their license plate)

Haha!
Now, I'm almost ashamed of being Dutch!

Well, I also know of several positive things of NL but of course I won't
tell as long as Sky**** is still here ;-)

Benjamin

* Skybuck:

1. I have used 4 GB successfully with Windows XP X64 Pro. (64 bit os).

What the **** do you think microsoft is using for their huge website ?

Definitely not Windowsxp x64, ****whit.

2. Dark Messiahs already benefits from 4 GB of RAM.

Yeah, right, and the earth is a disc. FYI: DMoMM is a 32bit program and
limited to 2GB of memory. But how should a clueless horse****er like you
know?

Benjamin

"Robert Baer" schreef in bericht
k.net...
Skybuck wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:21 am, "don't look" don't wrote:

Crap.I've Flashed 100 bios' on several brands of motherboard in the last
20
years. Not a single one ever went wrong.I blame 99% of bad flashes on
user
ignorance.

"Skybuck" wrote in message

groups.com...




So you agree as well that flashing bioses is very dangerous.

The more reason for asus to make sure it's not required.

Yet the opposite is true, otherwise no full 4GB support.

Bye,
Skybuck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You a PC builder ?
** Yes, i have done that on numerous occasions.


How would you know if they failed if you shipped them to your users ?!
** I check all systems before i send them out (which you probably do not
do), and pack them carefully.
I even sent one to Ethiopia and it arrived in perfect condition despite
all of the handling between the planes used to get it there.
Only one "bare bones" PC failed, and it was DOA when i got it from the
vendor; UPS bouncing had ruined the motherboard. Got a replacement in a
few days.


The boards might as well have died a few months later because possible
of the flash chip failing !
** BULL****.
I have *NEVER* seen a flash chip for a PC fail for over 10 years.
Go learn the difference between beans and duckeggs.


Did you think about that ?

Bye,
Skybuck.


Stop crossposting please, fup set to :
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:15:18 -0400, krw wrote:

In article .com,
says...
Let's recap:

1. Asus sells a motherboard with a bios version which does not
completely support 4 GB.

Up to you to do your research and read the release notes and BIOS specs of the
motherboard prior to purchase. You would know which revision supported
various hardware features. There is nothing unusual in field reconfiguring
a motherboard with a BIOS update.

You are definetly pushing it.

It wouldn't have mattered.

Time of purchase: 27-march-2006.

Time of known bios issues: 27-february-2006.

Too bad. 1 year old. Buy an new one.

Look closer, dip****. He states that he used it and had a problem
before he even bought it.

I still got a motherboard with an older bios from 21 december 2005 !

Not unusual.

See even the reseller didn't know and didn't about the motherboard !

No reason for them to.

2. People with 4 GB of ram want to use all the ram.

Which OS are you using?

What ya think man ? 64 bit os ofcourse.

Wrong. You didn't read the flash instructions, did you?

As if you would know. The older MOBOs required a DOS boot with no
memory managers to flash their BIOS. Modern MOBOs, hi included, can do
it from within windows, and ASUS offers the utility for doing it.

3. People with the sound problems think maybe a BIOS flash will fix it.

Only ****wits like you.

Oh no, many people do that.

Many ****wits, like you.

You're a goddamned retard, KiethKeithStain.

Creative labs and others even advice trying to update the bios to see
if that helps.

Of course they do. Blame everyone and anyone. Sooner or later
something will happen and you'll go away. Creative is the *worst*,
BTW.

The worst for what, dip****? You always make half assed wise cracks.
That is likely how you work as well. Everything half assed.


4. So many people flash the bios.

They are all just schooling minnows.

Sure diss all the other people.

Sky**** included.

He is an idiot, but you surpass him, because you actually think that
you are intelligent.

5. Flashing 1 million transistors (BIOS size) needs a success rate of
beyond %99.9999.

What no reaction ?

Why do you think you deserve one?

You certainly don't.

6. If 1 out of a million transistors fails to flash properly, problems
could and will occur. Very strange problems will occur.

The complexity of your CPU transcends your BIOS memory. How often does
your CPU invent itself new instructions at runtime?

What does this have to do with anything ?

Think, boy.

Said the twit with the ten year old school child mentality.

So to me it doesn't seem strange many people are buying BIOS chips.

Thee is no law which prevents morons from flashing their BIOSes because it
is a cool thing to do.

Maybe there should be !

You *must* be a Europeon.

More ten year old school twit mentality shining through, eh KiethTard?

YOU are the peon, boy.

You want government to issue a flashing
license? I don't think the general public would understand.

Do you even know what the word "maybe" means? Also,it wasn't even his
suggestion, idiot.


I can also understand an American sueing these sort of companies of
delivering incomplete/unfinished products.

You understand nothing.

You talk ****.

You speak...

As does your ass, because your mouth knows better (I doubt that as
well).

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Robert Baer:

Perhaps you should learn the diference between beans and duckeggs.
Your diatribe about flashing is in that category, and i suggest you
drop it.
A BIOS chip will *NOT* allow anyone to use 4Gbytes of RAM.


Yes and no. The BIOS can prevent anyone using the area below the first
4GB of memory if it doesn't support the new memory scheme (often called
"memory hoisting" or something like that in BIOS setup).

Microsoft has a very clunky and bloated program that purports to
support use of 4Gbytes of RAM,and they do not support it.


What should that be? FYI: the only Microsoft OSes that support more than
4GB of RAM and that aren't supported any more are Windows 2000
Advanced/Enterprise server, Windowsxp 64bit Edition and Windowsxp 64bit
Edition Version 2003 which both are for Itanium.

Windowsxp x64 Edition, Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition and Windows Vista
x64 (all for AMD64 and intel EM64T/intel 64 processors) off course are
fully supported as are the 32bit Versions of Windows Server 2003 that
support more than 4GB by using PAE.

And you yet have to show what you mean with "clunky". I was using the
IA64 versions of WIndowsxp, I'm using Windowsxp x64 Edition since it
came out and now I also use Vista x64. Besides the latter with it's own
Vista-specific oddities I see nothing "clunky" on them, also not on
Windows Server 2003.

Other than that, one cannot use 4Gbytes of RAM (with MS OSes).


BS. You can't use 4GB of RAM with *any* 32bit OS that doesn't use tricks
like PAE to circumvent this limitation.

FYI: the reason for that has nothing to do with Windows. It's a hardware
limitation. Traditionally, the I/O address range is located below the
first 4GB of memory. Depending on what and how much devices like PCI
cards are on the system a certain amount (usually somewhere between
~384-700MB) gets reserved by the BIOS for I/O. This I/O space is not
available for the operating system.

Somewhat modern 32bit OSes like Linux or Windows Server still can use
memory over 4GB by using a page switching technology (PAE) which is slow
but works.

Current 64bit PCs usually have a BIOS that shifts the I/O address range
over the upper physical memory allowing a 64bit OS to use the complete
physical RAM. But that requires a BIOS that supports the new addressing
scheme, and it requires a 64bit OS because only these use flat adressing.

The best one can do (and i have tried this) is to have 3-4 Gbytes
installed, use Win2K (the leanest MS OS that will recognize over
2Gbytes of RAM)


BS. The leanest OS that recognize over 2GB or RAM is WindowsNT 3.1

Besides that, Windows 2000 is EOL'd which means it won't get fixed any
more and already starts lack of being supported by programs and drivers.
And it takes smoking of a whole lot of **** to believe that Windows 2000
is in any way faster than Windowsxp.

AFAIK there is *no* CONSUMER program that uses over one Gbyte of
RAM, because damn few consumers have over 512Mbytes;


Where do you live, behind the moon? Even entry level PCs already come
with more than 512MB of memory, most users probably already have 1GB or
more, and gamers usually already own 2GB.

And yes, there are lots of programs using more than 1GB. Even standard
programs like IE, Firefox, Thunderbird, Office etc. do. Current and even
not so current games like Oblivion happily use all of your 2GB of memory.

Welcome to 2007.

So we are back to beans and duckeggs; you have no need for even
2Gbytes of RAM.


This might be true for your (very limited and outdated) little world.
Unfortunately reality is different.

Beans and duckeggs.

Benjamin
Most or many PCs are sold with 128K or 256K of RAM because the public
wants a cheap computer.
Glacial due to virtual memory disk swapping.
Know someone that has a Dell that takes more than a day to defrag
(256K RAM, WinME).
A computer with over 512Meg of memory seems to be rare, except for
gamesters that have money to burn as well as a few other strange(?)
exceptions.

The PAE program to access/use more than 2Gbytes is clunky; smoke and
mirrors - no direct (read linear) access of all of RAM (if one has over
2Gbytes installed).
The info is directly from M$, and in the same breath they said that
they do not support it.

But everything changes in a 64-bit system.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:53:37 GMT, Robert Baer
wrote:

Most or many PCs are sold with 128K or 256K of RAM because the public
wants a cheap computer.


Bull****. Even bare bones machines around here or in any city's PC shops
I have looked at start at 512MB. Most are 1GB.

I haven't seen ANY at your RAM level in at least two years, perhaps even
three.

If you configured your bare bones offerings for folks that way, your
CRAP is ****.