Re: Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?
From: David Hollway [MVP] (tNhOrSePaApM_at_angelfire.NOCAPITALS.com)
Date: 02/17/04
- Next message: Steve: "Upgrading from Win2K Server"
- Previous message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: adding english dsl software to french xp OS"
- In reply to: John Smith: "Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Next in thread: John Smith: "Re: Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:31:35 -0000
[crossposting trimmed]
"John Smith" <> wrote in message
news:OUVqslY9DHA.1112@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I am curious if I need to install the Intel INF file Utility on my Windows
XP Pro (Build
> 2600.xpsp2.030422-1633 : Service Pack 1)? Currently running fine but I'm
not using any
> USB2.0 devices or SATA HDs yet.
Hi John,
You must install the .INF update on any system where the chipset post-dates
the OS. In other words, as the Intel 865/875 family chipsets were released
after Windows XP, you must install it in order to ensure that all chipset
devices are correctly utilised.
>
> My P4(800) Springdale Chipset system is up-to-date with all the Windows XP
Service Packs,
> Driver Updates and Critical Updates found at the Windows Update page. My
SATA and USB 2.0
> controllers show up in Device Manager without problems. However, my
mainboard manufacturer's
> website has an Intel INF Utility posted for my board (a DFI PS83-BL using
the latest BIOS)
> and I've pasted this Utility's Readme file description below.
The system will appear to work fine without having installed the Intel
Chipset Update; however, not all the components of the chipset will be using
the optimal drivers and performance features. The chipset update isn't a
driver, it's just a collection of .INF hardware definition files that define
for Windows how it should handle the chipset devices. If you attempt to
install the update on a system that doesn't need it, the setup will exit
cleanly, and no harm will be done.
>
> Also, my mainboard BIOS offers an "enhanced" mode option for enabling SATA
which is supposed
> to allow for "both" SATA Channels plus 4 PATA devices (2 masters and 2
slaves) from the
> regular IDE controller. Furthermore, you can also choose to flip the SATA
devices from 0 to
> 1 and 1 to 0.
> I've emailed DFI many months ago several times about this but something
must be getting lost
> in translation, as they have never responded.
> I searched newsgroups for this topic with Google which yield both "yes"
and "maybe" answers.
Legacy OSes (mainly Windows ME and earlier) can only boot from IDE
controllers on IRQs 14 or 15. For these OSes, you should therefore use the
"legacy" or "compatibility" mode of your BIOS, which will enable any 4 out
of the 6 (2 SATA + 4 PATA) available ATA ports.
For Windows 2000 and onwards you can use the "enhanced" mode, and use all 6
ports concurrently.
> Also some postings seem to warn about "switching from PATA to SATA on
existing WinXP
> installations." I get the feeling that something really bad will happen if
I did that, so
> I'm concerned because I need to upgrade to larger HDs. I would like to get
a pair of SATA
> 160 Gb units. I plan to clone my existing PATA HDs using DriveImage7 and
then switch to the
> SATA connectors (which will also free up the standard onboard IDE
controller for my DVD,
> Burner and Zip drives).
I've just done exactly that on my Intel D865PERL motherboard, switching from
a pair of Western Digital / IBM 120GB ATA/100 drives to a 160GB IBM SATA
drive & a 120GB Seagate drive. I used Ghost to clone the drives; it went
absolutely flawlessly:
1) Switched off XP,
2) switched the BIOS to Legacy mode, so that Ghost (under DOS) would see the
2 SATA drives and the 2 HDDs on the Primary IDE channel,
3) Booted Ghost from a USB pendrive
4) One by one, cloned the PATA drives to their SATA equivalents,
5) powered off, removed the PATA drives,
6) changed the BIOS back to "Enhanced" ATA mode, and rebooted.
7) System is now working perfectly on SATA drives, no reconfiguration
needed.
I hope this helps..
- Next message: Steve: "Upgrading from Win2K Server"
- Previous message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: adding english dsl software to french xp OS"
- In reply to: John Smith: "Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Next in thread: John Smith: "Re: Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Reply: John Smith: "Re: Do I need the Intel INF Utility for SATA?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
