Thank you very much for the UBU version.
I created the MCE myself with Py-Installer in an exe.
And replaced the DB r292 by plutomaniac.
Now I’m getting this error message!
The DB seems to be incompatible or not found.
What am I doing wrong?
- This MC Extractor error message has aleady been reported (look >here<) and Michael_Code knows about the problem…
- If you want, that a specific Forum member gets notified about your post, you should type the name correctly and set an @ in front of the name.
Why actually the MCE as EXE?
With a .py extension, meaning a Python file, there wouldn’t be any problems for sure.
After all, plutomaniac offers it as a Python file.
Turning it into a .exe is annoying, isn’t it?
Everyone can quickly install Python and be done with it.
@RoadrunnerDB, people ask for .EXE file, don’t want to mess with Python. Does publishing .EXE annoy you? Skip it. Pluto is not against publishing .EXE, otherwise he would have pointed this out to me long ago.
"I think you misunderstood me a bit.
Pluto doesn’t offer an EXE, right? So it needs to be created, and then offered here or somewhere else. But since he always offers the file as Python, it makes much more sense to set up your UBU version like that. Especially since it eliminates any problems!
Quickly installing Python and typing 2-3 commands (once) shouldn’t be a problem for anyone. And if someone has a problem with that, they should just stay away from the BIOS mode altogether."
The EXE was dropped in early days due to false malware detection, but a lot has changed in the MCE itself for UBU integration on old style Python, so the current and best way is using the EXE. Also the UBU code is no longer developed and it would need adaptation for new Python code and use of the MCE.db.
2 Likes
@RoadrunnerDB, It’s not for you to judge what and who needs it. The question is settled. I ask you to stop the discussion.
@RoadrunnerDB
Before you criticize something, you should inform yourself. Someone who doesn’t know much about the subject would be better off keeping quiet.
As MeatWar already has stated, the main reason for having replaced the MCE.exe by the slimmed MCE.py was the false malware detection of the *.exe by some antivirus tools.
For the UBU users it is much better to have the latest complete MCE.exe within the UBU package, because this way the Microcode update will be done without the need of any extra work.
I don’t know what problem you have now, I didn’t criticize, but rather suggested that it might be better to continue working with Python.
I’ve been using the UPU tool from the beginning, and I’ve known you for over 12 years now.
Back then on a German platform.
The UBU tool doesn’t have much to do with expertise, as it was written to make it easier to keep your motherboard BIOS up to date. But rest assured, I also know how to update a BIOS without UBU.
As I already wrote, I’m not criticizing, but rather making an observation!
But of course, I will comply with your request to end this discussion.
I think you’re the only one who understood me. 
@Michael_Code
Thank you very much for the updated UBU tool.
I have tested it with the latest BIOS X570P45.61 for my ASRock X570 Pro4 mainboard and it worked flawlessly. You have done a very good job! 
To avoid any misunderstandings regarding the UBU version it may be a good idea to start with a new numbering (e.g. UBU v1.80.01).
May be, you right.It is great that work still continues! Has anyone actually been able to use UBU to update and flash UEFI on Z690/Z790 motherboards? Do companies like ASUS and MSI still function with modified UEFI via Flashback feature?
The UBU tool is able to update some modules of an UEFI BIOS, but not to flash any BIOS.
Questions regarding the flashing of a modded UEFI BIOS should better been asked within >this< thread.
@Michael_Code
I think the best thing to do is start a separate topic and keep a list of changes.
1 Like
8 Likes
@Michael_Code
Thanks for having offered the updated UBU v1.80.01.
It worked flawlessly with the latest BIOS v5.61for my ASRock X570 Pro4 mainboard, but I got a mysterious “User GOP Driver file” message while trying to update the “Video OnBoard” AMD modules.
Here is the screenshot:
Do you know the reason?
Note: I haven’t touched the UBU\Files folder of the UBU tool v1.80.01.
1 Like
- About “User GOP Driver file”
We can place ANY GOP Driver file (include AMD) in path
*\Files\intel\GOP\Usr_GOP*
but with name IntelGopDriver.efi
Read \Files\intel\GOP\Usr_GOP_Readme.txt by SoniX
For example
- Unknow - Unknow
First, code name CPU (now was AlderLake-P). UBU and drvver.exe dont know about newest CPU.
Second, version number. After change method numeration, we heve problem with drvver.exe. Also with network UNDI.
Hello Michael,
thank you for your quick reply.
This is the content of SoniX’s _Readme.txt file:
“In this folder you can place the Intel GOP Driver you need.”
If you should be right regarding the location, where the desired AMD GOP Driver has to be inserted (as file named “IntelGopDriver.efi” into the sub-folder named “intel”), this would be absolutely irritating for the UBU users and should be corrected with the next UBU version.
By the way - why is the Intel GOP Driver v1.0.4.6 within the Files\intel\GOP\Usr_GOP sub-folder of the UBU tool v1.80.01 you have delivered? There should only be the _readme.txt file and no GOP Driver in it.
This is the picture I get after having deleted the file named IntelGopDriver.efi and redone the UBU work:
This means, that my reported tiny problem while using your offered UBU_1_80_01 can easily been solved by deleting the file named IntelGopDriver.efi, which is within the Files\intel\GOP\Usr_GOP sub-folder.
Now your updated UBU tool runs perfectly for me (without any issue).
Well done!
1 Like