We'd certainly welcome them moving to coreboot. They might even gain a new feature or two, but there's work involved on their part (and the story usually ends at that point).
As opposed to.
I know these boards are legacy, but does it really cost them that much to host the files for occasional downloaders?
One would have thought they'd tread carefully after so many recent PR hits, but I guess not.
(Not that I think there's anything wrong with using alternate channels for media which is legitimately unavailable by any other means.)
The survivor is a D945GCLF2 (Mini-ITX Atom board) that runs my Asterisk installation. Even it's a bit wonky, though; kernels newer than 2.6 have a weird ACPI issue that crops up when the CPU temperature is above 71 C (which normally only happens when I'm compiling a new version of Asterisk). No BIOS or kernel fix is forthcoming.
If it wasn't for the expensive-to-replace PCI telephony card, I'd chuck it for an AMD-based Mini-ITX.
(although apparently not in mini-ITX, but there are still a few Atom boards with ITX and PCI non-E available)
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the hardware is 15, 30, or 70 years old. These are not large files. Keeping up some old downloads should not be too much to ask of Intel.
If Intel would like to release all copyright claims to their old BIOS's and officially (!) designate the Internet Archive or a similar organization as their new caretaker, I'd be fine with that, because I'd know where to go if I ever needed an old BIOS. What I do not want is to have start hunting down links from malware-infested file-hosting sites.
I know many people on HN work in web technologies where last year's technology is already obsolete but I've worked in small hardware companies that still used industrial equipment controlled using a serial keyboard with a DIN connector and a monochrome CRT. I've seen people order parts for 20+yo industrial soldering ovens.
You can't really tell somebody with a highly expensive, perfectly functioning industrial machine that they have to buy a new one because you can't find the driver for the motherboard of the controller.
Especially if the machine can be isolated from the internet (like a printer controller).
Just peek into the electrical closet in any building you're in. They don't tear out all the electrics and reinstall the latest version every 15 years.
And my PhD lab was using mass-spectrometers that still required vacuum tubes.
Sometimes you've got to have a Bozo when a competitor or associated business has one or more Bozos in a decision-making position.
Just to be seen as competitive or up-to-date.
Apple and especially Microsoft made more money from anti-recycling after they pushed it into a position where the original superior engineering was not as lucratrive for the shareholders.
Users should be grateful since they were not squeezed more thoroughly even sooner.
The anti-user effect is just collateral damage.
Sandy Bridge is not the newest microarchitecture generation of the processors Intel made motherboards for. That's Haswell series (Q87, B85 chipset branding went with this), launched in June of 2013. Boards like DQ87PG, DH87RL, DB85FL. These also have the same notice of end of bios availability.
Then again I remember arguing with a VP that storage is cheap and email size limits are draconian enough already. She was not pleased.
Maybe it is really just about the budget.
It's entirely possible they aren't even backporting support software like the build tools.
When you are supporting a large number of old versions, it becomes difficult to keep all the quirks and variance straight. On one team where we were only talking about supporting about 4 versions, and were already seeing friction. I was stumping for splitting up the responsibilities across multiple engineers, so that everyone was responsible for knowing the current version, and only one old version, but I don't think the other people saw the trap I was trying to route us around.
When did this feature come into the app? 1.2? 1.3? 2.0? I dunno, but I know it was after 'my' version (1.1).
It's cheap in comparison to the data that a business is saving. That's really expensive data. The people that created the data cost thousands of dollars per month. It would be stupid to save $0.02 if there's even a small chance that someone will need to spend $200 to rewrite a document or reverse engineer some information that they had in an email from a couple years ago. While some data - an installer for 3rd-party software, or photos/video - is pretty large, a single config file or code file that may have been perfected over months or years is just a couple kB, and it's hard to keep the latter useful without the former. And if a customer's $100,000 installation goes down for an extended period of time because you deleted their backup images to save space? You're not getting another order like that from them.
- I want bigger mailbox to handle bigger mails incoming and outgoing. Result: bigger mailbox.
- Then everyone else in the company gets bigger mailboxes. Result: bigger mailbox x1000.
- Also: bigger mail-server backups.
- Also: bigger desktop/user-profile backups, because Outlook duplicates all this info locally.
- Also: bigger storage needs for anything also interacting/duplication selected mail (like CRM, import services, whatever).
- Also: bigger backups needed for all those systems.
- Etc etc.
And IMO it's a perfectly valid claim.
Maybe storage "only" costs $0.1 per 100GB in isolation (or whatever), but for a full company with all systems involved, in aggregate it quickly it may exceed 1000x that.
This doesn't have to be so. Some users have genuine reasons to require more mailbox storage. Not everyone has the same needs. And if 1000 users really need more space, then either they should be given the space they require, or they're doing something wrong that can be solved by technical means (like sending links to large files instead of the files themselves).
> - Also: bigger desktop/user-profile backups, because Outlook duplicates all this info locally.
This can be configured to some extent.
Indeed. Organisations cause them all sorts of problems by not allowing exceptions to the rules.
The project is open source, can store a complete collection of all drivers offline, and can detect and update drivers. Please do note that you should always take a system restore point, as I have had a few issues with graphics drivers installed with the tool in the past.
But "potentially infected" is mostly paranoia scaremongering, unless you deliberately go for the ad-encrusted huge-flashing-download-buttons sites(and probably even those are OK) --- there's plenty of other community-based sites (like the one linked here) which I've used before for various software, and I'd say a lot of times I trust the community even more than "official" sources. Especially when the latter has commercial interests to uphold.
> It appears to be even worse. They're also removing old graphics drivers (and maybe even something else )from their website too, and that is bound to happen even earlier, the October 11th.
They were popular on AMD because the other options were spotty at best. I loved my SiS 735 and ULI M1695 boards, but virtually nobody touched the chipsets-- almost exclusively second tier manufacturers. VIA was the leader before nVidia hit, but they had a long string of half-baked launches... you had to assume that you'd wait for the second-revision chipset.
On the Intel side, the only place they competed was in a specific enthusiast gamer segment. The nForce 780i chipset was hot running and unpopular, but people bought it because they wanted to run SLI. I srtill have one sitting around, from a "gaming PC" I fished out of a dustbin The heatsink on the chipset is comically large and cries out for a fan.
It also would allow AMD to potentially gain an edge over NVidia in the GPGPU space. Missed opportunity imo, it still seems like an excellent idea.
That said, they have been working on opening up the GPU space via ROCm: https://rocm.github.io
As far as I remember, since Windows 7, I generally stopped download drivers from hardware vendors, used Windows update.
> Note that they are actively removing files, they removed near 200 between the time I scraped the links and the time I started the downloads... shits going fast.
 Gigabyte used to mark BIOS updates as "beta" when it's past their time (in 2012 Gigabyte terms: a year) to provide less warranty & support in case something goes wrong. They're as stable as the main versions.
Old stuff could contain info Intel now recognizes as enabling to exploiters, researchers, et. Al.
Edit: I see that shot down elsewhere in the discussion.
I can't think of any good reason to get rid of that besides maybe "we're revamping the website and can't be bothered to port that bit".
And beyond that, what's the logic? "We don't want black hats to diff our patches so we make sure that the legit users can't get patched firmwares in the first place"? Doesn't really add up to me. People with enough knowledge, time and resources to pull such an attack will manage to get the binaries one way or the other.
I still think that incompetence and laziness are more likely causes.
It's nowhere near to being true. Software is going to be gone for haswell generation, boards originally released just 6 years ago.
Just legacy ones, for boards released in the 90s and early 2000s.
Mentioned in OP. No idea what the statement is based on, but Sandy Bridge is at least 2012'ish AFAIR.
Now if only archive.org would make it all searchable...
 a notable example being "Calculator Plus", a 9x/2K/XP-style calculator with some enhancements, but the name has since been reused for a horrible bloated and slow buggy "app".
Now he has a new laptop, but we can't download Windows Live Mail (unless we want to risk getting it from a dodgy site), and he won't even consider Thunderbird. Argh.
Back in the day this was said all the time at the office. Things change!
Surely the mighty Intel could just dump it on a FTP server, declare it unsupported and call it a day? I mean they're basically already there:
>All versions are provided as is.
If this is true, it's the perfect opportunity to create dodgy "DOWLOAD DRIVURZ NOW!!1" websites which host modified executables.
Intel is no longer serving BIOS updates for at least one product that was released 16 years ago and
last manufactured 15 years(!) ago. You've had 15 years to make copies of the BIOS files for your needs, and you can still use the original BIOS on your device.
Nothing to see here.