LaManchaDQ

The point that I got out of this back and forth is that some issues are more
important to some people than others and a truly customer-focused company
should be aware of this fact and not assume that just because an issue isn't
imporant to them that is also is not important to their customers.

Certainly drive-size support is not an inconsequential issue as quickly as
drive capacity is increasing and their adoption rate by users is fairly
quick.

Nonetheless, the P12 BIOS update was NOT withdrawn for my mobo (D865PERL).
I just checked and it remains a downloadable update. So there appears to be
a board specific issue with the GBF board.

The release notes for the P12 update were
New Fixes/Features:

· Additional IDCC support added.

· Fixed an issue where system will not boot to PXE when third party 256 MB
AGP card is

present.

· Added L3 cache info to SMBIOS table.

· Added logo support for unreleased processors.

· Displayed L3 Cache option in BIOS setup if a processor with L3 Cache is in
use.

· Fixed issue where loading CMOS defaults outside of BIOS SETUP would reset
memory timing

override questions to invalid values.

· Corrected spelling error for IRQ Help text in BIOS setup.

· Fixed intermittent false memory timing error that occurs after flash
updating a VPD

· Fixed intermittent failure to update VPD only Flash5 capsule.

· Fixed issue where system would not log event log errors.

· Fixed issue of unused PCI clocks not being turned off.

· Updated default Fan control settings

· Added IDCC Memory Extended Configuration information.

· Fixed a system hang problem during POST with a Flash USB Flash card
reader/writer.

None of the earlier releases addressed drive addressing except for RAID
issues.

As originally designed, the GBF natively supports 48-bit LBA, so you
shouldn't need any BIOS update to support a very large drive. So your
friens's problem is probably not associated with the BIOS.

Good luck on solving it.

"Walter Erne" <werne2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MS0Qb.7425$6o4.1132@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Of course that is what you said. You said "it's pretty reasonable to
assume
> though that IF it was anything important, the proper bulletin would
> have been created". My opinion is that isn't true. I believe my friend on
> the drives. You don't get it. I think that if they Intel pull a BIOS
> version off of their website and substitute an earlier version that they
> should tell their customers why. They didn't do it because they were
> superstitious. If they had a good enough reason to pull it then they
should
> let us know why. And any computer company worth their salt would monitor
> newsgroups on their hardware and provide informative and corrective
> information. I'm not filling out a support form because I think they
should
> publicly acknowledge this information not inform people individually.
> Corporations that do this normally just are trying to avoid bad publicity.
I
> think it is bad policy and normally backfires in their face but a lot of
> people just don't want to face bad news and think it will just go away if
> they ignore it, it doesn't. You may believe big brother is looking out for
> you; I happen to think that we have to look out for ourselves. It isn't
> often that others look out for you and I don't think they are doing so in
> this case. This is usenet; groups are abandoned only if someone doesn't
post
> and we certainly are doing that./
>
> Walter
>
>
>
> "Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:laYPb.100772$Rc4.640358@attbi_s54...
> > "Walter Erne" <werne2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sbUPb.9148$RR3.6163@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, it is reasonable to assume that Intel hasn't created
the
> > > proper bulletin and informed us about it. Why? Because they haven't.
> >
> > And, of course, that's not what I said. I said "it's pretty reasonable
to
> > assume though that IF it was anything important, the proper bulletin
would
> > have been created." And I stand by that, since I have no reason to
assume
> > the worst. Intel is not irresponsible.
> >
> > > hoping an Intel rep would answer one of these postings with the
correct
> > > information but it doesn't look like that is not going to happen.
> >
> > I think these groups are long abandoned.
> >
> > > Since they haven't I know a fellow system administrator who has bought
> > > several large
> > > drives for this motherboard to his regret. Apparently, Bios P12 won' t
> > > recognize more than 130GB in a 200GB hard drive.
> >
> > I don't see how that's possible, since I have a 200GB drive (and a
160GB)
> > with P12. No problem.
> >
> > > basic information, it makes you wonder what else they haven't told
you.
> > > Like
> > > I said when companies pull essential files off of their websites they
> have
> > > a
> > > responsibility to tell you why. The D865GBF is one of the basic
> > > motherboards
> > > used for Corporate America's workstations.
> >
> > Yes, we don't disagree (and it not just for that motherboard, the BIOS
is
> > for several), but if it's that important for you to know, simply fill
out
> > the support form. You should have an answer quite soon, and you can
report
> > back here when you have it.
> >
> >
>
>