Replacing Seagate OEM firmware with generic retail firmware

[fzabkar]

Aside from the obvious hurdle of the serial number, firmware version, and model number checks, is there any problem with replacing Seagate OEM firmware with generic retail firmware?

For example, would it be OK to replace HP12 7200.11 firmware with the retail SD1A bug fix firmware?

[BlackST]

Yes, BIG problems. When you succeed, say " AY ! "

[BlackST]

P.S. seriously , if they have spent time and effort in developing, testing and compiling a specific OEM FW, there is at least one reason. Otherwise, a simple sticker would be sufficient. Anyway, it's more difficult than you think (to have the drive 100% working and most of all RELIABLE)

[guru]

I think HP has it's own BUG FIXED FW

Try googling it

Aside from the obvious hurdle of the serial number, firmware version, and model number checks, is there any problem with replacing Seagate OEM firmware with generic retail firmware?

For example, would it be OK to replace HP12 7200.11 firmware with the retail SD1A bug fix firmware?

[mr_spokk]

That bug-fixed firmware for HP12 is HP13...and will NOT work on already affected drive.
...been there, done that!

Bosse

[fzabkar]

Thanks for the replies.

Sorry, the buggy HP firmware that I had in mind was HP24, not HP12. The fix was HP26:

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/Te ... R1002_USEN

I am aware of the Dell DE12 firmware issue also.

The specific issue which prompted my general question was the one in this thread:

http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/mes ... e.id=15186

The owner of an ST31000340NS Barracuda ES.2 1TB drive is concerned that he has no access to an update for his RS01 OEM firmware. My searches with Google have turned up nothing on this mystery OEM.

AFAICT, the drive is affected by the following update notice.

Firmware Update for ST3250310NS, ST3500320NS, ST3750330NS, ST31000340NS [207963]:

http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/s ... cId=207963

Part numbers 9CA158-301, 302, 303, 501, 502, 503 require SN06 firmware, whereas part numbers 9CA158-510, 511, 512 require SN16.

This suggests that SN06 applies to part numbers with suffixes 30n and 50n, and SN16 to suffixes of type 51n. A part number of 9CA158-271 does not appear to correlate with either SNx6 firmware version.

Does anyone know how to interpret the part number suffixes? Do they reflect some physical difference in the drives, or its firmware version, or both?

As for replacing OEM firmware with retail firmware, can someone give me a definitive explanation why this would fail? I know that Dell, HP, IBM, Commodore/Amiga sometimes fiddle with their power connectors, interface connectors, and RAM PD pins, for example. Being a cynic, I presume this is to frustrate those customers who would otherwise purchase generic parts and accessories at a fraction of the OEM's asking price. Maybe the OEM firmware does something devious like altering the positions of critical data in the SA, or the "adaptives" in the EEPROM???

[guru]

RS01 OEM firmware .....Maybe there is no problem with this FW revision..?

In a lot of cases paticular head/pre-amp/media and motor configurations are used for OEM variations. So FW is AFAIK built according to these specific configurations.

It's all down to luck really

[fzabkar]

RS01 OEM firmware .....Maybe there is no problem with this FW revision..?

The owner of the RS01 drive says that "according to Seagate, the serial number checker, and other info, it's meant to be affected by the 7200.11 firmware issues."

[nik]

Hi m8....
As i mentioned in my post

HDD ST3500620AS FW LC11 (factory), FW DE13 atm. None of the others Seagate's, HP's wont finish witouth an error....

Hmm really interesting is how they make this things.... always in a way that will spoil someone's day

[fzabkar]

None of the others Seagate's, HP's wont finish without an error....

You need to edit the flash.bat file and remove the -h option from the sf.exe command line.

This removes the model number and firmware version check.

See these usage instructions for SeaFlash (sf.exe):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/sf_usage.txt

I'm not advocating that you try this, I'm only pointing out that it may be possible ...