Really old motherboard FSB

[llawwehttam]

I have an ancient Elitegroup K7VMM+ ( i know its old) that used to run a duron. I replaced it with a 2.2 athlon but at first is only worked at 1500Mhz.

 

As the BIOS does not have a function to change the FSB I had to change it with a jumper on the motherboard but it can only change between 100 and 133 so the processor is only running at 1800Mhz ( a small improvement). Any ideas how to get this ancient ***** functioning as it should be or will I just have to live with it?

[SYNACK]

I would upgrade the BIOS so that it can detect the newer type of CPU and if that fails look for a multiplier setting to bump up the speed, either in jumpers or the reflashed BIOS.

[Cools]

manual : ECS Web Site

[llawwehttam]

manual : ECS Web Site

 

I just looked at the manual but thanks anyway.

 

The problem with a BIOS flash is that the tool supplied is an .exe and I have no computers with windows. Any ideas how I should go about this. I have considered booting BartPE and then running the utility from that off a memory stick but I'm concerned about how reliable that would be.

[SYNACK]

I just looked at the manual but thanks anyway.

 

The problem with a BIOS flash is that the tool supplied is an .exe and I have no computers with windows. Any ideas how I should go about this. I have considered booting BartPE and then running the utility from that off a memory stick but I'm concerned about how reliable that would be.

 

Should be fine as long as it is a standalone tool, are you sure the exe is not dos based as a lot are at which point you would need to boot to dos and do it from there with a boot cd or simmilar. I do not recommend using a FDD boot disk though as this is asking for trouble.

[llawwehttam]

Should be fine as long as it is a standalone tool, are you sure the exe is not dos based as a lot are at which point you would need to boot to dos and do it from there with a boot cd or simmilar. I do not recommend using a FDD boot disk though as this is asking for trouble.

 

How would you recommend booting DOS without a floppy. I have never managed to get dos to work from a cd.

 

EDIT: ecs are recommending using a FDD and I've just found some instructions. Now all I need is a FDD. lol.

 

EDIT2: It looks like I'm going to have to install windows temporarily just to get the rom. Bit annoying really.

Edited January 25, 2010 by llawwehttam

[SYNACK]

I use a dos bootable flash drive, just use the hp drive tool to create on and put the bios on there. The other thing you can do is get the FDD image file (if it is distributed like that) and burn that as the boot image to a CD which works fine.

 

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareDescription.jsp?swItem=MTX-UNITY-I23839

[llawwehttam]

Hmm nice. Just found this: DOS-on-USB - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Download.com

 

seems good. Will try it when I can get to a windows computer. All I have here at home is linux. I really need to get at least 1 computer with windows xp.........maybe even windows 7 just so I can use tools like this.

 

thanks for the help.

Edited January 26, 2010 by llawwehttam

[llawwehttam]

I think I'm going to cry. I have just managed to install dos 7.1 and the stupid motherboard I'm trying to flash can't boot from any of my usb sticks. It is supposed to be able to and they even show up under the boot menu but it can't boot from them. My other computer can so its not a problem with the install.

 

And you'll never guess what it said in the howto i was following.

 

'If you are unable to boot from usb then please try updating your BIOS'

 

I honestly almost cried. Still I can always resort to a floppy, unstable or not.

[llawwehttam]

Right, its now 10 past 1 AM, I am now trying it from a live windows cd with a USB to hold the files.

 

BartPE did not work. When I ran the program the command line simply froze.

 

This is just getting annoying.

 

Now downloading FreeDOS. If this doesn't work I'm going to bed.

 

POST 01:50 :

nope freedos comes up with 'Interrupt divide by zero, stack' and a bunch of hex. Guess Ill just have to make do.

Thanks for the help anyway.

Edited January 26, 2010 by llawwehttam

[AngryTechnician]

OK, you say it's a 2.2 Athlon... do you mean it's actually 2.2GHz or that it's an "Athlon 2200+"?

 

I ask because back in those days (when I wer'a lad, etc), AMD were naming their processors according to the (supposed) comparative performance with Pentium chips, and an Athlon 2200 actually runs at... 1800MHz.

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_XP_microprocessors]List of AMD Athlon XP microprocessors[/ame]

[llawwehttam]

OK, you say it's a 2.2 Athlon... do you mean it's actually 2.2GHz or that it's an "Athlon 2200+"?

 

I ask because back in those days (when I wer'a lad, etc), AMD were naming their processors according to the (supposed) comparative performance with Pentium chips, and an Athlon 2200 actually runs at... 1800MHz.

 

List of AMD Athlon XP microprocessors

 

 

Ooooooooh......... thanks. * sigh of sudden understanding* So I've just been wasting my time ( as usual). LOL

Oh well my excuse is I was using intel back then and as I'm 17 now I wasn't using computers that much then. I came in at a pentium I and 16 meg of RAM ( yeah I know luxury) and we also had a 1GB HDD *WOW* .

 

Anyway I didn't start using AMD till this year. I'm starting to like them though.

Have they stopped trying to trick their customers? LOL

Edited January 26, 2010 by llawwehttam

[localzuk]

Ooooooooh......... thanks. * sigh of sudden understanding* So I've just been wasting my time ( as usual). LOL

Oh well my excuse is I was using intel back then and as I'm 17 now I wasn't using computers that much then. I came in at a pentium I and 16 meg of RAM ( yeah I know luxury) and we also had a 1GB HDD *WOW* .

 

Anyway I didn't start using AMD till this year. I'm starting to like them though.

Have they stopped trying to trick their customers? LOL

 

They weren't tricking them - the speed comparison at the time was correct. A 2200+ was similar in performance to a 2.2Ghz P4.

[llawwehttam]

They weren't tricking them - the speed comparison at the time was correct. A 2200+ was similar in performance to a 2.2Ghz P4.

 

Oh right thanks. Erm...... bit confused on that one. * mutters something about ancient history*

So all their model names were based on comparisons? Wow I learn something new every day.

 

Thanks for the help guys. I feel a bit silly now. Almost 4 hours wasted....*sob* and I ran out of coffee half way through.

[RinSewand]

EDIT: I'm guessing that the 2200+ is its max overclock or something like that?

 

Nope - the 2200+ means it's equivalent to a Pentium 2.2Ghz. The max clock on them would be around 2.4Ghz on air, when REALLY pushed if I remember correctly. Wouldn't advise it on that board, you'd need it voltmodding.

 

*edit* it wasn't tricking users, it was because people would buy the pentiums due to them having bigger numbers on the front.

 

RwD

Edited January 26, 2010 by RinSewand

[llawwehttam]

Nope - the 2200+ means it's equivalent to a Pentium 2.2Ghz. The max clock on them would be around 2.4Ghz on air, when REALLY pushed if I remember correctly. Wouldn't advise it on that board, you'd need it voltmodding.

 

RwD

 

Right. I wasn't intending overclocking, I was just curious, was editing my post with that guess when localzuk posted.

 

I really need to learn more about hardware.