Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microsoft must hate SATA

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 20, 2006 11:08:09 PM

It still hasn't included native SATA support in the beta2 version of Vista!! This is killing me! Since I want to use the 64bit version of the OS, I installed it as such.

Unfortunately, none of the drivers for my board (Asrock 939Dual SATA2, ULi SATA chipset) will work for the 64 bit os! Anyone with more experience with this sort of thing have any ideas?

I searched the windowshelp.microsoft.com newsgroups but was unable to find anything of any help to me. There was a workaround for the 32 bit version, but it didn't quite work for me. Perhaps there is someone else out there with the same problem and may have an idea...

Thanks for anything anyone can input.

A similiar problem has been encountered by me with my tv card, sound card, and wireless network adapter, just an fyi.

More about : microsoft hate sata

June 20, 2006 11:09:28 PM

I thought XP SP2 had native SATA support... for most chipsets anyway...
June 20, 2006 11:16:10 PM

Quote:
I thought XP SP2 had native SATA support... for most chipsets anyway...


Not for mine, at least.

What I wish they would include would be a generic driver, just to get started. Something like that is included in the linux kernel and easily detects and uses any SATA drive/chipset that I have used. Maybe its just the way windows communicates with the hardware that is the problem. I don't know. I'll probably learn that in a couple semesters when I take my computer architecture class.
Related resources
June 20, 2006 11:36:07 PM

What SATA device/chipset you running? I have used both Beta 1 and Beta 2 of Vista and both of them have native support for mine, nForce 3 and Sil 3112 chipsets.
June 20, 2006 11:37:38 PM

It is a ALI chipset on this one. Also known as ULI the model number is M5289.
June 20, 2006 11:37:57 PM

Also, the only native support for SATA in XP SP2 I have seen is for nForce and Intel chipsets, no VIA or Sil, or ATI SATA is native that I know of... atleast in XP SP2
June 20, 2006 11:41:40 PM

Quote:
It is a ALI chipset on this one. Also known as ULI the model number is M5289.


Not extremely familiar with ULI chipsets... If that was manufatured after Nvidia bought ULi, I would have thought it did have it. Are you running a RAID or non-RAID setup? Cause Vista would see my RAID config on the Sil chipset but not on the nForce.

One nice thing is they atleast included the ability to load drivers off of something other then a floppy in Vista, thats the only reason I have my floppy drive. I believe everything, including USB Drives, MMC/SD, etc works too, as well as DVDs but I have not tried anything but CDs during the install of Vista.

EDITED* had what vista read RAID on backwards, is now correct
June 20, 2006 11:47:13 PM

Im sure it was manufactured before nvidia bought ULi, unless they bought them in november-december of last year. This is a non-raid setup. I was really wondering wether the XP 64bit drivers have a chance of working on the 64bit vista, or should I go to the 32bit version? I know that Nvidia has been working with Vista closely, but I am unsure wether they are making all their drivers vista-compatible.

I also noticed the ability to use things other than floppies. They did that right, in my opinion. However it obviously needs a bit more tweaking to be exactly right.
June 20, 2006 11:55:35 PM

hmph... I am sure it will all be fixed before launch, at least it better be!

I ditched PATA a few months ago, and am not looking back (possibly forward with the new i-RAM starting to come to fruition)

SATA is becoming the standard and should be completely supported, the same RAID, dammit!
June 20, 2006 11:56:47 PM

yea, they only recently got ULi so that may the problem. Vista may not include support for ULi SATA chipsets, atleast the "older" ones, pre-Nvidia.

I personally run the 64-bit XP and will be trying out the Vista 64-bit build tonight actually. As far as I am aware of, Vista can run XP drivers, 32 XP for 32 Vista and 64 for 64 but Nvidia does have unique drivers for Vista 32 and Vista 64 so the XP drivers may not be as good as the Vista builds.

Now, if Nvidia converted the "old" ULi chipset drivers to 64-bit or even Vista, I dont know but I doubt it, but hey, Nvidia has surprised me many times with what they do for their customers so I would take a run over to their website and check the BETA driver area if you dont find it in the normal driver area, the BETA area is in a link above where you select your normal driver choices. I do know the Vista drivers are all in Beta, as well as the nForce chipset driver of XP x64.

I will never go away from x64 edition again. Everyone complains about performance losses in 32-bit programs but I have not had any at all, sometimes I actually get gains in 32-bit programs. Not to mention being able to run what 64-bit programs and games, like Far Cry and Half life 2, that are out there is a plus.
June 20, 2006 11:58:41 PM

I just saw that version 2.20 of the drivers are compatible with vista. I've downloaded it and am gonna give it a try. Ill tell everyone how it goes in a bit.

Edit:
Same here with the x64. Can't wait for the vista build to work.
June 21, 2006 1:09:29 AM

Quote:
I just saw that version 2.20 of the drivers are compatible with vista. I've downloaded it and am gonna give it a try. Ill tell everyone how it goes in a bit.

Edit:
Same here with the x64. Can't wait for the vista build to work.


Well that didn't work. Ran the exe fine, but when the system starts up, the device manager says no drivers installed. When I update the drivers, it comes up with the right one, but says "couldn't find the file specified in the inf file." How do I fix that??
June 21, 2006 1:44:24 AM

Quote:
It still hasn't included native SATA support in the beta2 version of Vista!! This is killing me! Since I want to use the 64bit version of the OS, I installed it as such.

Unfortunately, none of the drivers for my board (Asrock 939Dual SATA2, ULi SATA chipset) will work for the 64 bit os! Anyone with more experience with this sort of thing have any ideas?

I searched the windowshelp.microsoft.com newsgroups but was unable to find anything of any help to me. There was a workaround for the 32 bit version, but it didn't quite work for me. Perhaps there is someone else out there with the same problem and may have an idea...

Thanks for anything anyone can input.

A similiar problem has been encountered by me with my tv card, sound card, and wireless network adapter, just an fyi.


I read thru the thread, please dont take offense if these questions seem simple to you.

Ihave an older SOYO mobo running windows home XP SP1, on which I use SATA drives exclusively, and I have had no problems with SATA 150. My board is to old to recognize SATA 300. SATA 300 mobos are backwards compatable with SATA 150, but the reverse is not true.

I'm not familiar with your mobo, but are you sure your mobo advertises the SATA bus/channels as "bootable"?
Many mobos used SATA only for additional non-bootable storage or RAID arrays.On these mobos, SATA cannot be used or recognized as a primary drive.

If your mobo does support SATA bootable, are you sure you are connected to the proper bus channel?
On my mobo, SATA channels 1 & 2 are bootable, while SATA 3 & 4 are RAID only, and require a special driver to be loaded during the installation of windows. My system will not boot from channels 3 or 4.

If you are using SATA 300 drives, is the mobo SATA 300 compatable?
If it is not, it wont recognize the drive, and theres nothing you can do about it but buy a different board
June 21, 2006 1:52:05 AM

These channels are definitely bootable. There are only 3 channels on this mobo. 2 from the ULi controller, then a SATA300 controller from Jmicro. All 3 are bootable from previous experience with several linux installations.

But thats kind of a moot point. At this point I have installed Vista on my other (PATA) drive, and am trying to get it to just recognize the controller properly. An endeavour in which I am totally failing in.

A new thought: Has anyone used a JMicro controller in Vista? Perhaps there is a way to use this controller instead. I will try to find out, and report back my findings shortly.
June 21, 2006 11:52:39 AM

Quote:
I just saw that version 2.20 of the drivers are compatible with vista. I've downloaded it and am gonna give it a try. Ill tell everyone how it goes in a bit.

Edit:
Same here with the x64. Can't wait for the vista build to work.


Well that didn't work. Ran the exe fine, but when the system starts up, the device manager says no drivers installed. When I update the drivers, it comes up with the right one, but says "couldn't find the file specified in the inf file." How do I fix that??

you simply have to have the ULI controller set with RAID disabled and the Jmicron set to IDE instead of SATA and you wont need any drivers.

SATAII features are not standard on every chipset, so Microsoft support basic set of feature and leave the enhenced feature to be set with controller drivers provided by controller manuf.

BTW, SATA is only an interface, the controller and the drive are still IDE. the controller use the SATA interface that allow enhenced feature to make drive transfer to better perform. By using IDE or PATA or legacy mode on SATA interface, you simply prevent the controller to use the new feature, so basic Microsoft drivers is all that is needed. Once installed, then you can download the drvers for th OS to enable the new feature.. but most are no use for day to day usage in desktop anyway.
June 21, 2006 12:42:01 PM

I've installed Vista (32 and 64 bit) on 3 different machines. Beta 1, February CTP, and Beta 2. None have had a problem with it and all three use SATA hard drives. Two are Intel chipsets, another is an AMD system with an ATI Xpress 200M board in an HP tower so most likely a ULI chipset. And on two of the machines (intel and AMD) I've also loaded XP Pro SP2, XP Home SP2, XP Pro x64, Server 2003 RC2, and Server 2003 x64. Once again, no problems.
June 21, 2006 1:38:16 PM

I can't get passed the second screen booting the Vista DVD on my DualSATA2. I'm using the JMB360 SATA2 controller. Xp installed with it without a driver disk? I should try as Pat suggested.
June 21, 2006 2:15:08 PM

I am not 100% sure what screen you are talking about but if i had to take a guess, thats the screen where it tries to find a hard drisk to install to... In bios, is the SATA controller you are using set to RAID or IDE(non-RAID)? If it is set to RAID, you need two SATA drives with some kind of RAID config setup for it to see anything using those ports.
June 21, 2006 2:20:22 PM

Quote:
I can't get passed the second screen booting the Vista DVD on my DualSATA2. I'm using the JMB360 SATA2 controller. Xp installed with it without a driver disk? I should try as Pat suggested.
yes, set this controller to IDE and you'll be fine. I have this board and I could install anying on it without any drivers disk, unless set as RAID or specifically asking for SATAII enhenced features.. which require driver(obviously, in 2001, Microsoft could not know what those feature develloped not so long ago would be..)
June 21, 2006 2:21:29 PM

I have the same board. Asrock does have drivers for 64 bit xp and they worked for me.

http://www.asrock.com/support/download.asp?Model=939Dua....

Use the floppy image and just have it the drive when you start the install. It does not prompt you like xp. Just sees that they are there.
June 21, 2006 3:02:46 PM

it does have sata support. What it doesnt is your raid controller's support.
June 21, 2006 6:29:27 PM

Thank you guys for proving me stupid. I hadn't even thought of trying it in IDE mode, and in that light I'm gonna do it right now. I'll tell you all how it goes.

Thanks for all the advice, by the way. Now I have hope that I can get it to work!
June 21, 2006 6:31:13 PM

No worries man, we all learn this stuff sooner or later. I wish I knew of this forum when I was messing with Vista and x64 windows... took me weeks to figure this out...
June 21, 2006 8:32:03 PM

Quote:
Thank you guys for proving me stupid. I hadn't even thought of trying it in IDE mode, and in that light I'm gonna do it right now. I'll tell you all how it goes.

Thanks for all the advice, by the way. Now I have hope that I can get it to work!


Well that didn't work. I set the raid to non-raid, set the SATAII to IDE, and plugged the drive into the SATAII port. Vista still won't recognize it. I tried it in the SATA ports and that didn't seem to work either, so I don't know what to do. Maybe this is all being caused by an old bad driver install?

On a related note, when I try to install the drivers for the Jmicron (or my wireless for that matter) the windows driver installation screen comes back with an error that tells me that the system can't find the file specified. Does anyone know what that means? Can I add a file to combat the system not finding it?

I'm thinking that I need to reinstall the OS. It just doesn't want to take any of my drivers and I'm at my wit's end. Anyone with any more suggestions before I spend all that time reinstalling Windows? Should I use the more driver-friendly 32bit version?

Arrrrgh... It's drivin' me nuts!
June 22, 2006 5:53:52 PM

There is absolutely no point in running the 64-bit version of Windows since other than Internet Explorer and Far Cry, there is no applications that are written for the 64-bit OS. The only point to it is enlarging your e-cock and saying "I run 64-bit Windows".

I really don't even think Vista is going to bring 64-bit to the forefront of Windows. With a 32-bit version available, and almost no one (other than gamers mainly) giving a crap about having more than 4GB of RAM, people are going to stay on a 32-bit OS. Especially with the recent knowledge of the 64-bit version of Vista requiring signed drivers for every driver. Granted you can disable the requirement at the moment but that will be gone in the release version without it being hacked.
June 22, 2006 7:05:02 PM

So I should go for the 32bit version then?

I was wanting to use the 64bit version to be able to witness the greater speed and to also utilize my 64bit capabilities that otherwise would sit unused.

I mentioned speed because I have gone from 32 to 64 and back again with Linux distros, and I have noticed a general speed advantage in 64bit over the 32bit varieties. I also noticed that it performed better in 64bit when multiple programs were running as well.

Too bad Microsoft can't figure out that capability. I think it would be nice to be able to use those extensions in windows. Be able to do a better comparison that way.

By the way, Linux is better at everything but software support, in my experience. There are similar, if not better programs to almost everything that windows has to offer, not to mention you can use wine to do almost everything else (except gaming, of course. But I don't do that, so it doesn't matter in my case).

If you think that 64bit windows is pointless, maybe it is. Maybe it will be for a while now. But, as the early adopter/beta tester type, I like to be on the cutting edge. So while you putt-putt along in your Model A, I'll be blazing by in my Corvette. Too bad they forgot to put tires on my new shiny new 'Vette... :cry: 

But on a more technical standpoint, I'm gonna say: Screw Vista64. I want something that at least works. So I guess I'll settle for a 4wd van to get me through this rough time, and maybe at the end of the road, they will have figured out how to seat the bead properly.

P.S. Sorry about the car metaphor. I've been reading car and driver all day.
June 22, 2006 7:19:59 PM

Quote:

Should I use the more driver-friendly 32bit version?


If you are using the x64, you have to use 64-bit drivers, even in Vista 64 for now. I cant quite remember which O/S you are running... and i am too lazy to re-read it all ;) 

I have had problems with some SATA devices on other computers as well. Sadly enough, sometimes, you just have to not use a certain O/S :(  it sucks...
June 22, 2006 7:25:48 PM

Quote:
I cant quite remember which O/S you are running... and i am too lazy to re-read it all ;) 


I'm actually running several, including one distro of Linux (suse) and Win98, XP and Vista. Vista is the only one giving me trouble. Go figure! It's a beta.

As for the 64bit drivers, some of my devices' manufacturers don't even have those, so I'm SOL with that unfortunately. Oh well, it'll migrate eventually.
June 22, 2006 7:44:30 PM

I run Windows XP x64 edition on my gaming machine and I get better performance using it vs 32-bit windows when i run 32-bit programs. I would be happy to re-install 32-bit for now other reason then to prove this to you, FITCamaro. I know that FEAR, Oblivion and NFS:Most Wanted, as well as others, have gained performance since I started running 64-bit, and no, those programs are not 64-bit, they are each 32-bit.

Everyone has their opinions on what O/S is the best but I agree with you, why not just use the 64-bit capability if you have it? Especially if it is completely stable, which sad to hear it is not for you, it is for me.

As far as no 64-bit apps? Maybe you should do some research there, FITCamaro. Half Life 2 is 64-bit, Macromedia and Discreet are both producing a 64-bit version of their software. There is also 64-bit audio/video encoder/decoders out there, most made by minor companies.

So far, my only complaint with Windows XP x64 is that WMP will not have a taskbar control when minimized like in the other Windows XP versions but that is extremely minor. The only driver I can not find for it for my system is for my 4 year old AudioTeck Maya 5.1 sound card, but I have an X-Fi now so I dont care.
June 22, 2006 8:13:10 PM

Quote:
I cant quite remember which O/S you are running... and i am too lazy to re-read it all ;) 


I'm actually running several, including one distro of Linux (suse) and Win98, XP and Vista. Vista is the only one giving me trouble. Go figure! It's a beta.

As for the 64bit drivers, some of my devices' manufacturers don't even have those, so I'm SOL with that unfortunately. Oh well, it'll migrate eventually.

I did try Vista 64-bit and I was not too impressed with the driver availability either. Vista 64 will not take WinXP 64 drivers, as far as I know, and it wont take Vista 32's either. I will not be upgrading to Vista 32 at all, I am staying with 64-bit versions but I will give it atleast 6 months after launch before I consider it, to make sure there is a good selection of 64-bit drivers out there. I have been using Windows XP x64 on and off since it first went Beta over a year ago. It went out of beta almost exactly a year ago but not until about 6 months ago was there enough drivers for me to run my computer 100%. At this point, I really dont see anyone converting drivers for older devices to 64-bit.

Probably your only bet to get your current computer to work would be buy a PCI or PCI-E (if you have the port) SATA controller card that is fairly new.
June 22, 2006 9:01:57 PM

Quote:
Probably your only bet to get your current computer to work would be buy a PCI or PCI-E (if you have the port) SATA controller card that is fairly new.


I thought so. But an interesting note: My mobo, ASRock 939dual sataII has the integrated SATAII controller running off the pci-e bus. Maybe I'll be able to fiddle around with it to get it to work properly in vista32. Maybe itll be working right out of the box. Im gonna do the install here in a few minutes. Ill reply with my results.
June 22, 2006 10:09:41 PM

Remember this IS Microsoft, guys. Meaningful changes to their programs and software only come when it is being extremely strongly demanded by their large customers that can switch to another OS or program suite, and not a moment before, and usually well after. Things like out-of-the-box SATA and RAID support don't matter much to MSFT as most large companies use HDD images that have the right drivers for their models of equipment rolled in. Also, people who buy OEM computers have the OS pre-installed with the drivers from the OEM's stock image. The recovery CDs or partition that comes with the machine has the drivers and OS also in an image.

Only enthusiasts will install a generic copy of an MS OS on a computer with no vendor support (i.e. an upgrade from an older OS or new on a handmade PC) and that number is pretty small. In fact, MS was considering not even releasing boxed versions of Vista as almost everybody would need a whole new computer to run it anyway, they wanted to "reward" the OEMs for helping to keep MS a monopoly by not offering any other (or no) pre-installed OSes on their computers, and also it's much harder to use a pirated image of the OS for one particular computer than a generic install disk.
June 22, 2006 11:00:26 PM

Well, I guess it was just the 32/64 bit disparity that was causing the problems. In the 32bit version, all the devices either work right out of the box or they will take my winxp drivers without any problems. I am speaking right now out of vista.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to get around the security so I can edit ALL the files on my comp. It's not letting me access the documents and settings folder (don't ask). This may be fixed by the restart that I am due for from the drivers and updates. I may be back to this thread for some advice on this if I can't solve it by then.
June 23, 2006 1:06:39 AM

I connected a IDE drive to my DualSATA2 and the same thing happens.
June 23, 2006 2:57:42 AM

Turns out they are essentially symlinks. The new version of the Documents and Settings folder is the "users" folder.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean with the IDE drive connecton...
June 23, 2006 3:02:38 AM

Yea, I just re-installed my copy of the Vista 64 beta and played with it, on an old 40GB IDE drive I had laying around. It does seem to be taking Windows XP 64-bit drivers but some are not working, right now I have about half and half working and not.

The performance is not any noticeable quicker either, it actually seems a little more sluggish when opening programs. One thing I dont like is the COMPLETE re-organization of the system menu's and setup pages in control panel and others. I now have to completely re-learn it...

Oh, and Vista didnt see my nForce 3 SATA or SiI SATA controllers until I installed the drivers for them, but my drives are running in RAID so that may be the problem.
June 23, 2006 3:25:51 AM

Quote:
As far as no 64-bit apps? Maybe you should do some research there, FITCamaro. Half Life 2 is 64-bit, Macromedia and Discreet are both producing a 64-bit version of their software. There is also 64-bit audio/video encoder/decoders out there, most made by minor companies.


OK so theres 4-5 major apps, 2 product lines, plus a few minor apps. But overall the support isn't there yet (Office, almost every other game, etc).

Don't get me wrong. I want 64-bit to come and be successful. But the average consumer doesn't care so thats prolonging the transition.

As far as Vista 64-bit, I love having a 915MB page file with only one of my companies apps open (uses about 20MB of RAM). The freakin systems requirements are enough. This is with a 3.0GHz P4 w/ HT, 2GB RAM, and an x700.

Oh well. At least the 32-bit version is only using a 500MB page file now instead of 600MB.
!