brk102@leah.albany.edu (Brian King) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.062009.13307@uwasa.fi> hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama) writes: >>>Perhaps you could give us some dates and version numbers out of these >>>AMI bioses you are writing about. I have AMI bios and 135 Mb AT/IDE >>>and I haven't noticed such problems. >> >>The problematic bios date was 4/30/89. Actually it appears it may >>not be the size of the disk (or at least not only that); the speed >>of the disk may be more important: it does look like it could be a >>timing problem. Anyway, our experience was that machines with the >>AMI bios had the problem, when it was changed (in one case to Phoenix, >>in another to newer AMI) it went away. > >Yes, that is what I wanted to know. Newer AMI is alright. Phew. > Well, the majority of replies that I received seemed to think that it might be the BIOS. So I called the original manufacturer of my computer (Tri-Star) and told them my problem. I told him that I felt that I needed a BIOS upgrade for various reasons. He told me that 4/89 was the latest BIOS AMI had for computers with a CACHE on the motherboard! 4/90 was the latest for other computers. (I have a 64k cache.) For his solution, he told me to optimize the disk. Needless to say, this was NOT exactly the answer I was looking for. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I didn't tell him exactly how long the drive seems to pause. Maybe he just thought that I meant that it was pausing for more milliseconds than usual. I am sure I would really have noticed that! (Anyways, I was sure that wasn't it, because I routinely optimize it.) AS far as I am concerned, unless AMI has a later BIOS for motherboards with caches, then a low level format is my only hope. (Don't worry! I won't do it until I have the appropriate software!) BTW, can anyone verify that matter that I stated about AMI and cache motherboards? Is there really a special BIOS for cache MB's? IT doesn't make sense to me. I must just not be thinking at the moment. The cache on the motherboard is a RAM cache. It doesn't have anything to do with caching my drive (if I understand this correctly, that is. Please feel free to chastize if you feel the need. :-) Can anyone explain this? Thanks again for all the pointers... -Brian King (brk102@leah.albany.edu)
hdrw@ibmpcug.co.uk (Howard Winter) (06/19/91)
(On the subject of the latest AMI BIOS for a 386 with Cache being dated 1989). Someone is either dishonest or misinformed. I have an Octek 386-33 motherboard with 64K cache, and the AMI BIOS date is 01/03/91. I don't know whether each manufacturer has to have their own version of the BIOS (my board has the SIS chipset) or if the same one will work on all boards. It doesn't seem likely that for current technology boards (OK, 486 is here but 386s are still selling like hot cakes) that the latest software would be 2+ years old. Perhaps the manufacturer of your board doesn't have a later BIOS, but AMI themselves may be able to supply something ? Whatever, I would go back to the supplier and get them to sort it out properly. Good luck, Howard. -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group. -- hdrw@ibmpcug.Co.UK Howard Winter 0W21' 51N43'
bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) (06/26/91)
This is a somewhat interesting tidbit. We have experienced the same problem on several computers with Phoenix BIOS (Model American 386/25 Tower) and had tried to get the problem resolved for several months. It was finally determined that the problem was in the Phoenix Bios and a NEW upgrade from Phoenix sure fixed the problem just fine. Apparently is was a timing problem with eh Phoenix BIOS. The new version is Phoenix 80386 ROM BIOS Plus Version 1.10 20.C2 Hope this helps with the problem. -- >.. CCS Enterprises, Inc. .. Bob Willey, CDP ..< >.. P.O. Drawer 1690 .. uunet!consult!bob ..< >.. Easton, Maryland 21601 .. (301) 820-4670 ..< >.......................BBS: (301) 476-5098.....................<
hdrw@ibmpcug.co.uk (Howard Winter) (07/01/91)
I don't know if this is a complete red herring, but I was sitting
near a machine we'd had installed for a client (a Compaq 386/N as I
remember) and the hard disk powered itself down. Now I'm used to
this happening on laptops, but in a desktop machine it surprised me.
When I did something which needed the disk, it ran up again and
acted as if nothing had happened apart from the time taken to
spin up to speed - just like a laptop. The drive fitted is a
Conner 40MB 3 1/2" low profile (about 1" thick) - just like you
might find in a laptop.
Various thoughts occur to me:
1. Could it be that the drive itself has a power-down timeout period ?
2. What if a laptop-destined drive with the above feature was
fitted to a desktop machine by mistake ?
3. What if there is a jumper on the drive which activates this
feature, and was accidentally activated on a desktop machine ?
4. Could there be a signal-line or a command which tells the drive
to power down, and it was set/sent in error ?
How do laptops stop the disk anyway - surely not just by chopping
the power ?
Conner drives run very quietly normally - would someone in a noisy
environment notice if the drive stopped, apart from the 20-second
delay while it spins up ?
Just my tuppenceworth -
Howard.
--
Automatic Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not
represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
--
hdrw@ibmpcug.Co.UK Howard Winter 0W21' 51N43'