1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Installing WinXP on SATA drives - specific drivers needed?

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Christer, 2005/08/19.

Page 1 of 2
  1. 2005/08/19
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hello all!

    An ongoing thread has dealth with problems during the installation of WinXP on a SATA HDD. Problems have been that BIOS has been able to detect the SATA but not the WinXP installer ...... :confused: ...... but it actually did to be able to partition, format and finish the file copying process ...... :confused: ...... but then it halted and "asked for drivers" ...... :confused: ...... if I understood it correctly.

    I have installed WinXP on two SATAs:

    1) Asus P4P800 + 160 GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA, the HDD was detected, a system partition created and formated, the installation completed without any problems at all.

    2) Gigabyte GA-K8N Ultra-SLI + 160 GB Hitachi 7K250 SATA, RAID was enabled by default which had to be disabled in BIOS but apart from that, as above, no problems at all.

    My experience is limited to these two installations (I will do my third in a week or so) but other people obviously have problems so, my questions are:

    Have I been lucky, implying that problems are common?

    Have others been unlucky, implying that problems are rare?

    (If I could, I would create a poll on this. How about it, Arie?)

    Thanks for Your time,
    Christer
     
    Last edited: 2005/08/19
    Christer,
    #1
  2. 2005/08/19
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    Christer

    I think part of the answer lies in the extract from the manual I posted in that thread ....
    Seems that the mobo manufacturer's don't have a definitve answer either :eek:

    I suspect that the file copy stage of an XP install is done in 'DOS' and requires no specific driver unlike Windows when it starts for the first - and subsequent times.
     
    PeteC,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2005/08/19
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    PeteC,

    I didn't believe that one was allowed to mention DOS and WinXP in the same sentence ...... :p ...... !

    Anyway, doesn't the WinXP installer run the show from the stuff that is loaded into RAM, prior to even discussing partitioning and formating?

    Maybe Microsoft or "generic" SATA drivers are loaded but they can't handle all SATA firmware? I don't know which version of Barracuda NF has but it worked well with the 7200.7.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #3
  5. 2005/08/19
    savagcl Lifetime Subscription

    savagcl Geek Member

    Joined:
    2003/06/09
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    7
    Christer,

    Since i was one of the unlucky ones - I can only speak for the seagate HD.

    There appears to be some confusion between "Drivers" and "Controllers"
    when it comes to XP and SATA (Seagate Drives). I believe they mean the
    same thing but the terminology hasnt been standardized (yet??).

    I'm sure you already know a lot of this stuff but it may help someone.

    The F6 key will not load the ICH(X).

    I strongly believe (but i wouldnt swear by it) :) that:

    Seagate will tell you their HD's dont have drivers. Instead they use the
    ICH(X) Controller from Intel. The "X" represents a number that has to
    match the motherboard (An "R" in the ICHX(R) means for raid systems).

    I also believe that after XP is completely installed, its asking for the ICHX
    controllers to be installed (not really a driver).
    If the HD is from another system and has a Primary partition, BIOS and XP will
    recognize it but if its a new install of XP, the ICH(X) is still needed (for the
    matching motherboard).
    If its a new HD, Xp will be installed on it but then it needs the ICH(X) to
    tell XP how to use it.
    More like the chipset (ICH(X) needs to be installed right after XP is installed.

    If all this is wrong, someone jump in and straighten me out.... I'd love to know
    if my thinking is wrong.
     
    savagcl,
    #4
  6. 2005/08/22
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    clif,
    I'm ...... :confused: ...... but my experience is limited to two installations on SATA HDDs and on neither occasion, did I have to do anything but ...... :) ...... ! I will soon increase my experience of installing on SATAs by 50% and I'm actually looking forward to it.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #5
  7. 2005/08/22
    savagcl Lifetime Subscription

    savagcl Geek Member

    Joined:
    2003/06/09
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    7
    Christer,

    Hope i didnt add to your :confused:

    I talked to the guy at bestbuy (who fixed my sata hd problem), and he said that
    he use 1 of the utilities from the seagate site to write all zeros to my hd and
    then 1 to rebuild the mft (may have been the same utility doing both).
    After that, it accepted the formatting/partitioning. Still dont know which util
    he used. Frankly, i've havent had much luck with seagates utilities.

    Hope you can get it working.

    clif
     
    savagcl,
    #6
  8. 2005/08/22
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    clif,
    there are many threads going on the SATA drivers topic. What confuses me is that I have never had any problems but others have. It is with a degree of trepidation that I will take on the next build ...... :p ...... but You're not to blame!

    No matter what, I think that I will get those drivers scribbled down on a floppy, if they should become necessary.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #7
  9. 2005/08/22
    savagcl Lifetime Subscription

    savagcl Geek Member

    Joined:
    2003/06/09
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    7
    Christer,

    Wont hurt to have them handy hopefully you wont need them.

    I double checked and for intel MB's anyway, the SATA controller is in the
    ICHxxx Since the ICHxxx is basically the chipset, loading it after a new install
    should be done. I have loaded the chipset several times, right after a new
    XP install and also weeks/months later with no ill effects.

    With a new system including a new STAT seagate, the ICh is needed right
    after install of XP.
    With a system already having XP and a SATA drive, adding a new SATA
    should be no problem having XP see the new drive.
    With a system already having XP and an IDE HD, and adding a used SATA
    drive (has primary partition), do the ICHxxx (for that matching MB) then plug
    in the SATA.
    Never delete the primary partition (WindowsXP will not see the drive for
    sure!!!

    Leads me to the question of: which takes presidence, IDE or SATA or is it
    dependent on the BIOS boot sequence?

    thanks,
    savagcl
     
    savagcl,
    #8
  10. 2005/08/22
    jaylach

    jaylach Inactive

    Joined:
    2005/04/05
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't say for sure about being dependant on bios boot order on a sata drive position in the order, Savagcl, as I've never actually done work on a sata board yet. However, I would think that a sata board, even if the sata was the default, that it would be changeable in bios. I don't know that it would but I would think, like a scsi drive, that it would.

    A thought on the install issue...

    Please remember that, while I have installed XP a few times, it's been so long since I have it will pretty much be like a first time when I finally break down and go dual boot with XP/2000. What I say below is just a thought that came to me while reading the thread. It is not based on any experience or knowledge.

    What I'm baseing the following thought on is that it may be possible for a sata install to go fine on some boards and not others due to how much sata is on chip. It might be possible that on a recent board there could be everything needed on chip but on an earlier set only enough to be recognised. It might not be a bad idea to see if there is a bios flash for the board. Before doing the following I would also check to be sure that there isn't a manufacturer's utility to prepare it for windows install.

    On windows 2000, early in the install, it asks for scsi controlers or drivers. Right now, for the life of me, I can't remember which. Does windows XP do the same? Or does it do it for sata? If it does for both, or even for just scsi, would that be a good point to, at least try, to install the sata drivers? It isn't something in a menu, it's a timed wait for response at the bottom of the screen, you have to look for it on 2000 and hit a key while it's waiting. If I remember right, it's an 'F' key.

    Sorry this is so long for something that is, most likely, useless but I figure it's better to put out a thought that is useless that it is to not put out a thought that could of helped.
     
    jaylach,
    #9
  11. 2005/08/23
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    XP is the same - second blue screen, I think - at the bottom of the screen - F6 to load third party drivers - or words to that effect.

    XP recognises my SATA drive in DeviceManager as an 'SCSI Disk device'.
     
    PeteC,
    #10
  12. 2005/08/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Well guys,
    all I know for certain is that there will be a delay in the delivery of my next build for a friends daughter ...... ;) ...... !

    I will test those two 7K250 SATAs which will get partitioned C: primary + D: logical in an extended and E: + F: logicals in an extended respectively. (Only the HDD receiving the OS will be connected from square one.) If, as clif indicates, I won't get away with the second HDD having no primary ...... :confused: ...... then SATA is a load of c*r*a*p.

    Another interesting aspect is different chipsets. I have installed on Intel 865, nForce4-SLI and the next will be VIA UniChrome Pro K8M800 / VIA VT8237. Any findings during that installation will not be generally conclusive.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #11
  13. 2005/08/23
    savagcl Lifetime Subscription

    savagcl Geek Member

    Joined:
    2003/06/09
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    7
    I have loaded/reloaded a handfull of times using recovery cds, a full MSWinXP
    SP2 and some restores from disk images.
    Never have i had the "F6" do anything except to say there was nothing usable
    on the floppy. The floppy contained the ICHxxx file from Intel. Yet after XP
    was installed, there was no problem in running the ICH file. A good thing is that
    if the ICH dont match the MB, it will tell you....

    savagcl
     
    savagcl,
    #12
  14. 2005/08/23
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    Hi Christer
    Why? I would be the first to say that I am not fully conversant with all the quirks of disk partitioning, but take a look at my drives as seen by Partition Magic .... Surely all drives have a primary partition which may be completely taken up by logical drives?? Is it not the case of the primary being active (for an OS) or not - for logical drives.
     
    PeteC,
    #13
  15. 2005/08/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hi Pete,
    neither do I know all the bends on the road of partitioning but:

    I do not multi boot and have no use for more than a single primary partition. That should be reason enough.

    If I get an additional primary on the second HDD forced upon my system, when Windows assigns drive letters, primary partitions have precedence, e.g.: Disk0 and Disk1 both have one primary and two logicals (within an extended), the drive lettering will become C:, E: and F: for Disk0 and D:, G: and H: for Disk1. I don't want that, I want the drive letters to be sequential from the front of Disk0 to the back of Disk1. I don't know if it is possible in Disk Manager to change the "default sequence" of primary partitions in order to get them sequential but even if it is possible, why should I accept more fuss from SATA than from PATA?

    About the screenshot, as far as I know PM is quite alone in labeling an extended partition as "primary" and that creates a lot of confusion. They also label unallocated space as "primary ". You, Pete, have only one primary partition, C: and the rest are logicals within three extended partitions, one on each disk.

    The screenshot reveals that Your SATA is seen without a primary partition (no matter what PM labels it) which means that I can put my worries to rest (unless I encounter the same situation as clif). It also reveals that multiboot can be acchieved with only a single primary partition which is the boot partition.

    Do You agree with me now ...... ;) ...... ?

    Christer

    By the way, a comparing screenshot from Device Manager would be interesting ...... :) ...... please!
     
    Christer,
    #14
  16. 2005/08/23
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    Hi Christer

    Agreed :) I wonder why PM reports things differently - or does Disk Management not tell the whole truth?
     
    PeteC,
    #15
  17. 2005/08/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    I believe that Disk Manager tells the truth. It has been that way since DOS days ...... :rolleyes: ...... since long before Partition Magic emerged.

    Was the Crucial 128 T: connected when the PM screenshot was taken?

    It has a primary partition (active) which is formated FAT32. My guess is that it is in an USB enclosure and that You haven't done anything with it exept connecting it. They come configured that way to be useable with all OSs under all conditions (all grounds covered, just to hook it up).

    It does, however, shoot a hole in my "primary partitions have precedence" statement but it may be different with removable disks.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #16
  18. 2005/08/23
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    Yes it was and I must admit I had not noticed that PM did not report it. It's a 128 Mb pen drive - no drivers needed for XP, but need to load drivers for 98.

    PM does, however, report my 2 external USB/Firewire drives as S & U when they are switched on and shows them as Primary partitions as does Disk Management.
     
    PeteC,
    #17
  19. 2005/08/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    oops, I read 128 GB instead of 128 MB, my mistake.

    Maybe my assumtions for the "misread pendrive" applies to these drives but You reformated them NTFS.

    It seems like XP remembers the drive letters when devices are dis- and reconnected. The pendrive T: has sneaked in between the external drives S: and U:. I assume that You bought S: before T: and everything was connected when You bought U:.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #18
  20. 2005/08/23
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,890
    Likes Received:
    387
    For the USB drives, yes - for pen drives, no.
    I have a couple and removing the 128 Mb, plugging in the 256 Mb and then the 128 Mb changes the drive letters - the 256 Mb is T and the 128 Mb is V.
     
    PeteC,
    #19
  21. 2005/08/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,566
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hmm,
    it seems like You're running out of drive letters ...... :D ...... !

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...