ACPI Error message
Everytime my PC boots, the following is written to the System Event log: AMLI: ACPI BIOS is attempting to read from an illegal IO port address (0x71), which lies in the 0x70 - 0x71 protected address range.
Everytime my PC boots, the following is written to the System Event log:
AMLI: ACPI BIOS is attempting to read from an illegal IO port address (0x71), which lies in the 0x70 - 0x71 protected address range. This could lead to system instability. Please contact your system vendor for technical assistance.
And:
AMLI: ACPI BIOS is attempting to write to an illegal IO port address (0x70), which lies in the 0x70 - 0x71 protected address range. This could lead to system instability. Please contact your system vendor for technical assistance.
The two messages are written only once on every boot.
I have an Abit BX133-Raid motherboard with latest bios (ZW), with an Celeron II 566 running at 850 mhz.
The OS is XP final.
My system is 100% stable, no crashes or anything, but I am wondering if this is hampering the performance.
AMLI: ACPI BIOS is attempting to read from an illegal IO port address (0x71), which lies in the 0x70 - 0x71 protected address range. This could lead to system instability. Please contact your system vendor for technical assistance.
And:
AMLI: ACPI BIOS is attempting to write to an illegal IO port address (0x70), which lies in the 0x70 - 0x71 protected address range. This could lead to system instability. Please contact your system vendor for technical assistance.
The two messages are written only once on every boot.
I have an Abit BX133-Raid motherboard with latest bios (ZW), with an Celeron II 566 running at 850 mhz.
The OS is XP final.
My system is 100% stable, no crashes or anything, but I am wondering if this is hampering the performance.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Ok, thank you
I guess I'll just have to wait for Abit to release a new bios for the BX133-RAID then.
I guess I'll just have to wait for Abit to release a new bios for the BX133-RAID then.
yes I have BE6 II v2.0 (same as BX133 but slot)
The problem is the BIOS but f'n Abit doesn't have update for their BIOS. We should be able to disable something in BIOS to prevent it from writing to that potected range. Proboly caching or shadowing, I am not sure.
The problem is that both BIOS and OS try to write to same part, and OS won't let the BIOS do it.
THis for a fact resulted in the eventual breakage of my IBM 46.1 GIg 7200rpm ata100 drive.
Hope new bios is released soon before peoples drives are seriaously damaged.
The problem is the BIOS but f'n Abit doesn't have update for their BIOS. We should be able to disable something in BIOS to prevent it from writing to that potected range. Proboly caching or shadowing, I am not sure.
The problem is that both BIOS and OS try to write to same part, and OS won't let the BIOS do it.
THis for a fact resulted in the eventual breakage of my IBM 46.1 GIg 7200rpm ata100 drive.
Hope new bios is released soon before peoples drives are seriaously damaged.
"THis for a fact resulted in the eventual breakage of my IBM 46.1 GIg 7200rpm ata100 drive"
Humm, now I'm very interested about this statement.
I don't see how this could possibly do any kind of damage to hardware.
Something is attempting to write to a protected IO port address, however as this is protected the OS wont allow it to happen.
It's similar to badly coded applications attempting to access protected memory areas, the result is the application crashes as the OS will not allow that protected memory space to be used.
The fact the OS wont allow this IO address to be written to would, if anything, be a fail-safe to stop any potential damage to systems.
Humm, now I'm very interested about this statement.
I don't see how this could possibly do any kind of damage to hardware.
Something is attempting to write to a protected IO port address, however as this is protected the OS wont allow it to happen.
It's similar to badly coded applications attempting to access protected memory areas, the result is the application crashes as the OS will not allow that protected memory space to be used.
The fact the OS wont allow this IO address to be written to would, if anything, be a fail-safe to stop any potential damage to systems.
no brother not quite,
its not an application its the BIOS. What's the differance?
The differance is that when your booting up, the load on your HD is very heavy compared with when you are already in the OS. Also if the program is badly coaded with same circumstance it will result in a fatal crash, and you will have to restart computer due to total failure (crash) a.k.a freeze-up of system.
If that hapens regularly it will aslo couse Haardware failure.
I don't know why you can't see why a regularly scheduled repeated boot crash would break it. To be more specific the ploter in the HD gets destroyed. Verified by IBM.
its not an application its the BIOS. What's the differance?
The differance is that when your booting up, the load on your HD is very heavy compared with when you are already in the OS. Also if the program is badly coaded with same circumstance it will result in a fatal crash, and you will have to restart computer due to total failure (crash) a.k.a freeze-up of system.
If that hapens regularly it will aslo couse Haardware failure.
I don't know why you can't see why a regularly scheduled repeated boot crash would break it. To be more specific the ploter in the HD gets destroyed. Verified by IBM.
No, that simply doesn't happen with OS's based on NT.
I am yet to find a single application that can totally take down Win2k or WinXP.
The application crashes, Windows closes the offending application, continue where you left off - no re-boot required.
I don't understand how an attemted illegal access to a protected area can cause such a massive increase in load on a HD - this isn't possible.
You say you've spoken to IBM about this issue?
Problem is, with IBM HD's failing left, right and centre they will tell you ANYTHING so long as they aren't admiting the issue lies with their own hardware.
I have seen the ACPI error message on PC's since beta releases and they have not caused a system any un-due stability issues.
If your PC is regularly crashing then I don't think the issue lies with this even log error you are getting and maybe further investigation is required.
I am yet to find a single application that can totally take down Win2k or WinXP.
The application crashes, Windows closes the offending application, continue where you left off - no re-boot required.
I don't understand how an attemted illegal access to a protected area can cause such a massive increase in load on a HD - this isn't possible.
You say you've spoken to IBM about this issue?
Problem is, with IBM HD's failing left, right and centre they will tell you ANYTHING so long as they aren't admiting the issue lies with their own hardware.
I have seen the ACPI error message on PC's since beta releases and they have not caused a system any un-due stability issues.
If your PC is regularly crashing then I don't think the issue lies with this even log error you are getting and maybe further investigation is required.
I'd have to agree with Bladerunner on this- this ACPI/BIOS error will not harm your IBM (or other) drive. I'm running a Tbird 1.4 with an EPoX 8K7A motherboard and was getting this message since about July (using rc-1) all the way up to 10-12-01 (using RTM) when EPoX released a new BIOS for my board. The new BIOS fixed this error. I have 2 IBM 60GXP's in my box and neither has had any trouble at all during this time. Over 3 months of use with this error condition and no problems at all from my HDD's.
I'm aware of this 'class action' but as I did have 2x 75GXP IBM HD's and currently have 4x 60GXP units and all of these have worked without a single glitch or problem I wont be joining in.
