Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

[simplymike]

Hello, what is the safest way to flash BIOS? I can see three BIOSes of the same version on ASRock's site.
They are: Instant flash, DOS and Windows.
The Instant flash version E350M1USB3(1.80)ROM.zip contains just one file E35MU31.80 exactly 4MB in size which I think is BIOS itself.
DOS and Windows versions contain exe-files called E35MU31.80.EXE, I guess each exe-file contains a flashing utility along with the ROM contents to flash.
The DOS flashing utility is called AFUDOS, the Windows is called AFUWINGUI, the Windows package contains two sys-files, they are
possibly drivers for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows.
To start flashing, the Instant Flash variant needs just booting to BIOS, the DOS variant needs a USB pen drive, the Windows variant is happy with any disk storage accessible by Windows.
After all the investigations, I can't figure out what is the best (safest) way of flashing.
I was sure the safest was flashing from BIOS. Why then there are two other packages (DOS and WIN)?
What makes DOS and WIN flashers equally safe (if not safer) than the BIOS flasher?
Are there situations when flashing from BIOS is not possible?

[- wardog -]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Personally, I wouldn't use a Windows based flasher if my life depended on it!

It's Instant Flash here.

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Well, there were three but only one remains for me.
After some internet reading, the WIN flasher was rejected - too many sad stories about BIOS
becoming non-functional after flashing it in Windows. Au contraire, many good opinions
about flashing in DOS. However, I wanted to try the Instant Flash first.

And I could not make it to function. I can get the ROM file selection box (F6 or F2/Advanced - both work),
and I can see the ROM file with my new BIOS, but that's about it.
No matter what I click in that box - "Refresh device", "Reboot", "Configure", close the window, or just click
on that file - my machine will either reboot, go to BIOS or start loading Windows from HD, but will never
flash anything.

Not sure if it was me or the hardware - after trying all possible combinations (USB-stick size/port/speed/format)
I gave up on Instant Flash, I made me a DOS-bootable USB-stick and started the DOS flasher from it.
Works perfectly. I've always loved DOS.

[profJim]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Sometimes usb problems while flashing are due to a particular brand, model or size of the flash drive.
Using a usb 3.0 port is a no-no.
My preference is to use one of the usb 2.0 ports in the rear I/O panel.
Glad to hear that good old DOS worked for you.

[parsec]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Prof Jim and wardog are right, Instant Flash is the best, and you must use a USB 2.0 port on the rear I/O panel. If you fool around in Instant Flash, instead of just clicking the displayed BIOS file, things can get weird. I've flashed two Z77 EX 4 boards using Instant Flash, with almost every BIOS file ever available on my oldest board, and never had a problem.

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Prof Jim and wardog are right, Instant Flash is the best

These noble citizens did not not say it is the best. If you think that Instant Flash is better than DOS flasher please give us the facts, thanks.

[- wardog -]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Personally, I wouldn't use a Windows based flasher if my life depended on it!

It's Instant Flash here.

These noble citizens did not not say it is the best. If you think that Instant Flash is better than DOS flasher please give us the facts, thanks.

Allow me to be more clear then. I(me, mysyself) feel Instant Flash is better as it is flashing in a more pure environment because:

1. As you just recently discovered, "After some internet reading, the WIN flasher was rejected - too many sad stories about BIOS becoming non-functional after flashing it in Windows.". As flashing from within Windows it is certainly not to be confused with a "pure environment' while performing such a low level process. Windows itself has too too many processes running while at the same time relegating it to flashing you BIOS also. IMHO, and flame away all that read beyond here, windows flashers are around for one or two reasons. Noobs who don't have a clue, and those that call in to tech support the tech has an easy way with which to carry out flashing while over the phone. Again, noobs.

2. Flashing using DOS programs on a floppy, CD, or USB stick to flash introduces less than from flashing from within Windows, but again is prone to other faults that may crop up. Mainly that the flashing program itself running from an external I/O somehow fails Be it from being improperly produced with missing files, improperly unpacked when obtained from a 3rd party site, a bad CRC is generated and transmitted during, user error in writing out the batch file line with the / \ switches, that now ancient floppy drive motor picking a bad time to burp or fail, that ancient floppy you've had laying around in the bottom of that box has unknown bad sectors, a loose fitting should have been discarded usb cable decides to disconnect in the middle of, etc etc. A litany of possible disastrous things leading to failure are possible.

3. Yet as the progression of the means and or methods with which to flash BIOSes matures, ie DOS program w/batch files for years and now with the new(er) Instant Flash, there are fewer and fewer possible obstacles, ie hardware and software, to deal with and or overcome that in and of itself leads to a higher rate of users successfully flashing their BIOSes.

I am truly disheartened that you so easily dismiss discovering why it is that you could not make use of Instant Flash. To each their own I guess. You did however obtain the results you set out to do, that being successfully flash your BIOS without hosing it in the process. Congratulations.

[profJim]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

^^+1^^ Well said

When you simplify a procedure and minimize things that can go wrong, you are far better off.
Using a windows flasher? NO WAY!! And the same goes for flashing the bios under any other o/s.

Whatever can go wrong, will, in the worst possible way and at the most inconvenient time.

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Sorry for long quote

2. Flashing using DOS programs on a floppy, CD, or USB stick to flash introduces less than from flashing from within Windows, but again is prone to other faults that may crop up. Mainly that the flashing program itself running from an external I/O somehow fails Be it from being improperly produced with missing files, improperly unpacked when obtained from a 3rd party site, a bad CRC is generated and transmitted during, user error in writing out the batch file line with the / \ switches, that now ancient floppy drive motor picking a bad time to burp or fail, that ancient floppy you've had laying around in the bottom of that box has unknown bad sectors, a loose fitting should have been discarded usb cable decides to disconnect in the middle of, etc etc. A litany of possible disastrous things leading to failure are possible.

Thanks for the explanations. However, I don't see how BIOS flasher (Instant
Flash) is any better than DOS flasher.

You are right that flashing in single-tasking is better than in multi-tasking.
But we are trying to compare BIOS and DOS flasher which both run in
single-tasking environment. So no advantage for BIOS flasher so far.

Your comments about floppy drives and batch files are irrelevant. Floppies
are not in common use anymore as well as batch files. ASRock's DOS flasher
is a single exe file with embedded BIOS while BIOS flasher is part of BIOS
itself.

Suppose we try to upgrade our BIOS using a USB stick.
When flashing from BIOS (Instant Flash), we start flasher from BIOS menu or
with F6. In fact, control is passed to flasher executable (which is part of BIOS)
after is was read into RAM. The executable reads ROM contents from USB port
and flashes them to the BIOS chip.
When flashing with DOS flasher, we boot the machine from USB port and manually
start the flasher exe file. In fact we command to read flasher executable into
RAM and pass control to it. The executable reads ROM contents from memory and
flashes them to the BIOS chip.
In both cases the process of flashing takes up all CPU time and resources
which means no other process intervenes and spoils the process of flashing.

Suppose now the USB port with our new BIOS is faulty and read operation had
errors. In this case, both flashers check that ROM contents are intact.
Checksum error - no flashing. We are safe. Again, no advantage for the BIOS
flasher.

I'd rather say DOS flasher has advantages over BIOS flasher, because it has
better functionality. BIOS flasher is part of machine BIOS and flashing chips
is not the main function of BIOS. Therefore, the programmer is restricted
in his desire to put a lot of functions in the flasher - no room enough.
In the case of DOS flasher, there are no such restrictions.

Actually, we can see this when flashing. Instant Flash just displays a progress
bar, while the DOS flasher "ASR01 AMI Firmware Update Utility (APTIO)" tells
us a lot about how the process is going on (checking file, erasing, writing,
verifying, etc.). Besides, it has a number of command line switches, like
"Save current BIOS into file".

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Some more info about BIOS flashing I think could be of use to someone, which is missing on ASRocks site. Everything is from my own experience so the usual 'use at your own risk' disclaimer applies.

The DOS flasher for AMI/Aptio BIOS listed for many ASRock MBs is a modified AFUDOS "AMI Firmware Update for DOS" utility, it contains BIOS contents for the respective MB. Which means you can not use the utility made for one MB on a different MB. Flashing your BIOS with the wrong contents means just a waste of time if not bricking it.
DOS flasher is launched manually from a DOS-bootable USB stick after booting from that stick.
"HP USB Disk Storage Format Tool" will help you to prepare the stick. Be sure to copy the exe file unzipped from "MB_name(BIOS_version)DOS.zip" to the USB stick before reboot. I'd recommend to rename the file to something like AFUDOS.EXE to conform to the DOS 8.3 naming convention.

The list of command-line switches can be obtained with
AFUDOS /?

When started without parameters
AFUDOS
the flasher upgrades your current BIOS to the new version. This is the same as
AFUDOS bios.rom /P /B /N /ASR
where bios.rom is the file with new BIOS.

To save current BIOS into a file
AFUDOS oldbios.rom /O
where oldbios.rom is the file to save to

To automatically reboot after flashing
AFUDOS /REBOOT

P.S. I was not able to use Instant Flash on my MB with factory BIOS v1.40 no matter what I tried. After I updated to v1.80 using AFUDOS, the first attempt to use Instant Flash was successful. Then I tried different USB sticks and different USB ports that did not work in 1.40 - they all work in 1.80 now. Then I tried a 7-year old 512 MB Transcend and used the front panel USB port as the worst possible case - and again it works with Instant Flash. Then I downloaded BIOS 1.40 from asrock.com and was about to downgrade back to 1.40 to figure out what was wrong with Instant Flash - but stopped. I thought to myself: what are you doing? teasing Mr.Murphy? you don't have UPS, even the 5 or 6 times that you have flashed your BIOS without battery backup is too much. Besides, who told you that this MB allows downgrade in the 1st place? Case closed.

[parsec]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

The main point of our opinions (yes, opinions) of one BIOS flashing method over another is that the Instant Flash method has proven to be the most reliable for us. Reliable means consistent success, with the least amount of glitches, failures, or any issues.

Our philosophy about this is given the potentially dangerous nature of a BIOS flash, the most simple, straightforward method to accomplish it is the best one to use. We feel that the more "layers" between the BIOS flashing program and the CMOS chip itself, the more chances for failure exist. Running a BIOS update program from Windows is the farthest removed from the CMOS firmware level that normally exists in a PC, short of running it from a virtualized environment. A DOS based BIOS update is perhaps one step closer, but only due to the somewhat simpler nature of the DOS OS. Flashing from an OS simply adds more things that can fail, and cause the BIOS flash to fail.

Yes, flashing from DOS gives you more options, which is an advantage. Flashing from an OS is more convenient for some people too. When we are asked about which method to use, our choice is compromised towards a successful BIOS flash above all else. We cannot gauge a persons experience level with PCs from a few posts, so when in doubt, we choose what we believe is the method that provides the best chance for success. Given your last few posts, we can now see that your experience level is much higher than average, but if someone is requesting our advice, we will still always suggest what we feel is the safest method to accomplish whatever the task may be. You obviously understand this, given your "... the usual 'use at your own risk' disclaimer applies." statement in your last post.

We've also found in our experience dealing with our own and others BIOS updates, that in some cases, the only method provided by ASR for a specific BIOS update is Instant Flash. We've also had to deal with the dreaded Sandy Bridge board to Ivy Bridge CPU compatibility BIOS update, which users have done incorrectly many times.

So if we argue that one method is "better" than another, that is only because we chose to err on the side of safety above all else. Our choice can be debated of course, but in our experience we suggest what has the best chance for a positive outcome.

[electric bill]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Very nice debate. I can't choose a winner.

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

Flashing from an OS simply adds more things that can fail, and cause the BIOS flash to fail

Exactly. But do we have an option? I mean can we avoid using an OS?
A computer contains many parts - chipset and RAM on the MB, storage devices, output devices (video), input devices (keyboard/mouse), ports, etc.
In order to use all this hardware, an application program has to know how to interact with all that stuff. The devices all talk different "languages" because they were made by different manufacturers. Our application program has to speak languages used by all devices on a particular machine. Which means: either it has to know languages of all existing devices, and in this case it can be used on all machines. Or, it will only run on the machine it was written for.

Yet another option was to invent something that would act as an intermediary party between hardware (devices) and application programs. Operating system does just that - it provides common services for all application programs. In other words, it lets programs use the common hardware. Every electronic device that has keypad/keyboard and display, from ATMs to supercomputers, has an OS.

BIOS is just that - an operating system (Basic Input/Output Operating System).

Now back to our flashing BIOS questions.

It is evident that we can not flash our BIOS chip without using other devices. We need keyboard/mouse to send commands and make choices, we need video to display the results, and we need some storage device (HDD or USB stick) as the source of the new BIOS. That means that we need the OS as well, because without OS these devices can not function.

And a few words about BIOS/DOS flashing comparison. Our BIOS chip contains a set of commands/routines/parameters. Instant Flash is written there as well. Instant Flash does, in a nutshell, one simple thing - read from an external device (eg. USB) and write to the chip. Byte by byte, cell by cell. Obviously, it can not overwrite itself (ie. memory cells where it resides), otherwise the process will hang. In order to reprogram the whole chip, the flashing program must reside on a device external to the BIOS chip and be executed from that device.
We have such a device - it is system memory (RAM). Instant Flash is loaded from BIOS chip into RAM and is executed in system memory.
The same story with the DOS flasher. AFUDOS is loaded from USB stick into RAM and started from there. It works in system memory as well.

That is why ASRock (and other manufacturers) warn us NOT to switch the PC off during flashing. Also, that is why it is so important to use good RAM sticks. If not sure, run a memory diagnostic tool (MEMTEST86 or similar) before BIOS upgrade.

Now we want that the flashing process goes without interruption. That depends more on the author of the flashing program than on everything else, given we are not in multitasking environment. On single-tasking systems (DOS, BIOS) where only one program is running at a time, CPU time and other resources belong to that program only, I/O devices like keyboard can be made inexistent by disabling interrupts.

A DOS based BIOS update is perhaps one step closer, but only due to the somewhat simpler nature of the DOS OS.

It is not the simplicity that makes the difference, both BIOS and DOS when compared to Windows has one thing in common - they are single-tasking. So BIOS and DOS are equally simple when compared to Windows.

...if someone is requesting our advice, we will still always suggest what we feel is the safest method to accomplish whatever the task may be

It's OK by me. I prefer that people understand what they are doing, so I would rather try to explain them how it works. Some people in forums are so unaware what they are doing that the safest advice would be "Don't touch!" :)

[- wardog -]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

From five days ago when a rather "noob' answer was being sought ............

Hello, what is the safest way to flash BIOS? I can see three BIOSes of the same version on ASRock's site.
They are: Instant flash, DOS and Windows.
The Instant flash version E350M1USB3(1.80)ROM.zip contains just one file E35MU31.80 exactly 4MB in size which I think is BIOS itself.
DOS and Windows versions contain exe-files called E35MU31.80.EXE, I guess each exe-file contains a flashing utility along with the ROM contents to flash.
The DOS flashing utility is called AFUDOS, the Windows is called AFUWINGUI, the Windows package contains two sys-files, they are
possibly drivers for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows.
To start flashing, the Instant Flash variant needs just booting to BIOS, the DOS variant needs a USB pen drive, the Windows variant is happy with any disk storage accessible by Windows.
After all the investigations, I can't figure out what is the best (safest) way of flashing.
I was sure the safest was flashing from BIOS. Why then there are two other packages (DOS and WIN)?
What makes DOS and WIN flashers equally safe (if not safer) than the BIOS flasher?
Are there situations when flashing from BIOS is not possible?

To todays long winded diatribe???

??? Conners > CDS Foley +/> ?simplymike

Exactly. But do we have an option? I mean can we avoid using an OS?
A computer contains many parts - chipset and RAM on the MB, storage devices, output devices (video), input devices (keyboard/mouse), ports, etc.
In order to use all this hardware, an application program has to know how to interact with all that stuff. The devices all talk different "languages" because they were made by different manufacturers. Our application program has to speak languages used by all devices on a particular machine. Which means: either it has to know languages of all existing devices, and in this case it can be used on all machines. Or, it will only run on the machine it was written for.

Yet another option was to invent something that would act as an intermediary party between hardware (devices) and application programs. Operating system does just that - it provides common services for all application programs. In other words, it lets programs use the common hardware. Every electronic device that has keypad/keyboard and display, from ATMs to supercomputers, has an OS.

BIOS is just that - an operating system (Basic Input/Output Operating System).

Now back to our flashing BIOS questions.

It is evident that we can not flash our BIOS chip without using other devices. We need keyboard/mouse to send commands and make choices, we need video to display the results, and we need some storage device (HDD or USB stick) as the source of the new BIOS. That means that we need the OS as well, because without OS these devices can not function.

And a few words about BIOS/DOS flashing comparison. Our BIOS chip contains a set of commands/routines/parameters. Instant Flash is written there as well. Instant Flash does, in a nutshell, one simple thing - read from an external device (eg. USB) and write to the chip. Byte by byte, cell by cell. Obviously, it can not overwrite itself (ie. memory cells where it resides), otherwise the process will hang. In order to reprogram the whole chip, the flashing program must reside on a device external to the BIOS chip and be executed from that device.
We have such a device - it is system memory (RAM). Instant Flash is loaded from BIOS chip into RAM and is executed in system memory.
The same story with the DOS flasher. AFUDOS is loaded from USB stick into RAM and started from there. It works in system memory as well.

That is why ASRock (and other manufacturers) warn us NOT to switch the PC off during flashing. Also, that is why it is so important to use good RAM sticks. If not sure, run a memory diagnostic tool (MEMTEST86 or similar) before BIOS upgrade.

Now we want that the flashing process goes without interruption. That depends more on the author of the flashing program than on everything else, given we are not in multitasking environment. On single-tasking systems (DOS, BIOS) where only one program is running at a time, CPU time and other resources belong to that program only, I/O devices like keyboard can be made inexistent by disabling interrupts.


It is not the simplicity that makes the difference, both BIOS and DOS when compared to Windows has one thing in common - they are single-tasking. So BIOS and DOS are equally simple when compared to Windows.


It's OK by me. I prefer that people understand what they are doing, so I would rather try to explain them how it works. Some people in forums are so unaware what they are doing that the safest advice would be "Don't touch!" :)

You've at least got the below correct.

It's OK by me. I prefer that people understand what they are doing, so I would rather try to explain them how it works. Some people in forums are so unaware what they are doing that the safest advice would be "Don't touch!" :)

Unsubscribed

[simplymike]

Re: Three BIOSes same version - which one to use?

From five days ago when a rather "noob' answer was being sought ............

To todays long winded diatribe???

From noob to no-noob in 5 days! You made my day bro :)
Seriously, I've learnt a lot. Thank you all who answered.