ubersonic wrote:
This shouldn't even need a poll ... providing this update is the type of thing that's expected to be standard from a MB manufacturer on the level of ASUS :mad:.
I strongly agree with this.
ASUS shouldn't require arbitrary feedback of this sort to decide whether it's "worth" investing time and labour into implementing maximal hardware compatibility into their boards. They already know how many ASUS-branded Z97s they've sold (and are still selling) so they already know if over 1000 users are receptive to an NVMe compatibility upgrade. If they think people will want to buy NVMe motherboards then they shouldn't even need to ask. It's a fiercely competitive market where (whether they need it or not, whether they even understand it or not) customers will vote with their money and end up buying the motherboards which do it all. ASUS is renowned for maximizing capabilities and features on every motherboard they make, but I suspect a lot of customers loyal to the ASUS brand would shift their allegiance quickly enough if the day comes they feel ASUS failed to deliver on this implicit expectation. I half-jokingly suggest that a single vague "maybe we'll look into it" promise about NVMe development from Gigabyte or MSI would be worth more than a million votes on this ASUS poll page.
The entire notion of this poll seems a bit inane, anyhow. UEFI code modules are somewhat modular and interchangeable, once the core code works it shouldn't be too difficult to port it across multiple hardware platforms (ie, all ASUS-branded motherboards with latent NVMe capabilities) with necessary minor tweaking to address unique hardware quirks. Certainly, new features always require some "beta testing" in the wild because users will always have a wider array of (bizarre and troublesome) hardware configurations than ASUS could possibly access for in-house testing, and new features might require a firmware revision or three to get things just right.
Unless, due to UEFI capacity limits or somesuch, adding new functionality would come at the cost of losing old functionality. Even then, it would make sense to fork firmware versions or enable some sort of modular installation option so that users can select and prioritize which capabilities they consider most important.
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
[/Korth]