Flashing my BIOS

[djurom]

From my experience you don't have to put anything like /cc if you don't know specificly what do you want.
Just: awdflash newbios.bin http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
After that you will be prompted do you wan't to save your current BIOS (yes) and after that "do you wan't to program/flash" (don't know exactly): YES! That should be it http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif.
If everything went OK you will not get hardware conflicts, but if you do have any problems you can always flash it to old version (saved): awdflash oldbios.bin
DO NOT RESET UNTIL IT'S ALL OVER (FLASHING)!!
THE SIGN that you have new BIOS is in your left bottom corner saying the date of your BIOS.

[hav0c]

Ok Well I have a Abit VT6X4 and I just downloaded the new BIOS and I made a boot disk with the new bios.bin file and the awdflash.exe from the Original driver CD for my MB and command.com io.sys msdos.sys etc...

Do I have to use the /CC command when I flash my BIOS? What do I need to expect after my BIOS updates will I get hardware conflicts will i have to change any settings in the BIOS?

hav0c

[jpeppers]

How much memory do you have on your motherboard, and have you experienced slow performance? I have the same board with a 733Mhz processor with 64MB of RAM. From reading many posts it seems I need more RAM for Win ME.

[NDC]

As I have posted in your other topics, The memory you have is the issue. Memory has a very BIG effect on system performance. The more memory you have, the more of the OS access files will be loaded into RAM, thus doing less disk access.

[djurom]

WinME says in lot of .txt files that it needs at least 32MB for stable performance but I'm dragging even with my 64MB because OS is taking space, little programs, ...

I've just asked my friends with ME and they say that they are with 128MB in most of cases satisfied but with little pressure RAM gets full in no time.

[This message has been edited by djurom (edited 09-07-2000).]

[NDC]

Yeah, that is the requirement of memory that Win98 said also, but come on, it's like computing in molasses when you run win98 on 32mb or even 64mb. I would say that 128 would be the minimum requirement to run at comfortable speeds. Even with 128mb you will see some disk activity from the virtual memory access. IMO, I think that Win98 or ME should run on 256mb to run at a comfortable pace.

The thing I noticed about Win98 is that as you open and use programs, your resources get lower and lower even after you close the program. Some people say that the programs is the one to blame for not returning the resources after the program has been closed, but I think that to be untrue. I've run the same programs that I ran in Win98 that wouldn't return all the resource after the program was shut in WIn NT4, and that was not the case, resources were returned.

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-07-2000).]

[djurom]

Windows is a big mystery to a lot of people.
256MB is today almost common thing (if you have the funds http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif) all around but where is it all going? I just bought computer and I already have to think about upgrading.
And to make it so beautiful I found that my mobo doesn't support manual voltage config so I can't even overclock beyond 525MHz.

[RobRich]

The biggest loss of system resources comes from an ever increasing virtual cache file. Just load system monitor and watch what happens after several program load/exits. Even though Win9x is supposed to lower the cache size when more memory is needed, this will only happen when system resources drop to extremely low levels and the virtual cache is near capacity.

The best way to fix this problem is to limit the cache size. Here's a link for more info:
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10102-100-1577244.html?tag=st.dl.10001_103_1.lst.td

Robert Richmond


[This message has been edited by RobRich (edited 09-08-2000).]