The lackadaisical firmware support is why I have absolutely zero interest in any future Framework products. I spent like a minute skipping through the latest Gen.2 video, just to see what’s happening.
I didn’t even need one, but preordered and bought a Framework 13 AMD back in the day, to support the company. If I needed a notebook again, I’ll just swallow my pride and get a Lenovo again, not that I would need one anytime soon, as I almost always just stick to desktops I build myself, like the latest 9800X3D machine with ECC memory I built not even a month ago.
That’s not really how things work. It’s an unfair comment on everything they’ve achieved over the years. Framework is a small company with around 60 people, and different teams work on different tasks. The BIOS team isn’t the same as the people designing the new desktop. Development priorities are always a balancing act, but it’s not like everyone dropped BIOS updates to work on something else. These things take time, especially with vendor dependencies and validation processes.
Personally, my main concern is that they have a 3-person software team at Framework (at least if you look at the about us page) and an outsourced BIOS development vendor that they are clearly are not the priority for (or not paying enough to get the resources they need to get this stuff out on time), and they’ve now doubled the amount of platforms that need support, while many of the existing platforms already have critical security vulnerabilities that have not been patched.
They also sold upgrades to the AMD Framework 13 (the 2.8k screen) but 6 months later have not released an updated driver package to support VRR in Windows (though you can get it to work if you use AMD’s drivers…which Framework recommends against.)
I like the concept of Framework but their software / firmware support stinks, and I probably would not repeat my purchase had I known that at the time.
I removed your previous comment as it was flagged as off-topic by another community member. This thread is primarily for users to report issues with updating to 3.06 or with the BIOS update itself and receive help. If you’d like to discuss other things surrounding BIOS updates, you’re welcome to open another thread and post there. As a reminder to everyone, further off-topic replies will be removed/split off into another thread.
Is that confirmed? Is that really the only problem, and if we disable this feature there is nothing wrong with the BIOS? Can somebody confirm that?
If that’s the case, why does it take them more than 3 months to provide a new beta with this feature removed again, so we can have all the other security fixes while they figure out how to fix this feature?
This won’t help much, but I’ve used the beta since it came out and I’ve not experienced any new issues (not counting the new battery sustaining feature).
It hasn’t fixed any of my functional issues either mind you, including IRQ1 wake, but it hasn’t made anything worse from what I can tell.
I hate to be a whiner, but before the end of December has now come and whiffed, so has January, and also February. Any updates, @Kieran_Levin ? You’ve been validating for >22 days, if my math is right.
I think we should be patient despite the target date being derailed, I prefer a BIOS update that is properly validated than something that could break for users again and need to be held until a new release.
Last update was 23 days ago, I think that’s a pretty decent status update (most manufacturer don’t communicate like this).
I’d be happy with any update. I’m not complaining about “no bios update”, I’m not pleased that I’m on a firmware with no way to downgrade and multiple known issues severe enough to merit a pullback. An updated 3.05 that flashes over 3.06 would be the solution I’d expect from Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc. It’s a pretty trivial option, versus proceeding to 3.07 without any (current) public ETA.
Certainly it is putting me off, too.
EDIT: And I resent having had to cap my battery charge, for months, at 60% (as is advised on the current, buggy BIOS).
Perhaps if someone were to make that beta available - with all due disclaimers - then, it seems, you would be helping out the community. But here I am presuming that, at present, the beta is not (is no longer) available via this forum.
