 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / January 2007Windows 98 compatibility with ICH5R on-chip SATA controller (?)
Summary: The Intel ICH5R controller hub contains a SATA controller with limited RAID functionality. I want to understand more about the Win-98 compatibility of this SATA controller and how to obtain the correct (optimum) functionality of SATA drives running under Win-98. Details: Motherboard is Gigabyte 8KNXP with Intel 875P chipset (ICH5R controller hub). There are 2 SATA ports controlled by the ICH5R chip. I have 1 conventional ATA (IDE) drive connected to the standard IDE connector as the primary/master drive. I have 1 SATA drive (160 gb) connected to the ICH5R SATA-0 port. I'm booting from the IDE drive. The ICH5R is also a RAID controller, but only seems to have RAID-0 (striping). According to the gigabyte manual, this RAID-0 capability is only supported in Windows-XP (can anyone confirm this?) In the BIOS, I have the "On-Chip SATA" set to MANUAL, and SATA PORT-0 configured at SATA PORT-0 (as opposed to some IDE port). I have SATA RAID function set to ENABLED. When windows is starting, before I get the desktop, the Add New Hardware wizard comes up and says that it's detecting a "PCI RAID Controller". I've been trying to point it into a variety of directories but can't find anything it will take. (I get this message even if I disconnect the SATA drive). I've re-installed the version 6.3.0.1008 Intel Chipset drivers, but that doesn't help. It's interesting that the 160 gb SATA drive does appear in explorer as the D drive, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the device manager. Under the performance tab in device manager, it says that the D drive is using MS-DOS compatibility mode. In the BIOS, when I disable the SATA RAID function, windows does not boot (it re-boots itself before it gets to the desktop). In this situation, a look at the very end of the bootlog.txt shows 3 successive instances of initiation esdi_506.pdr. The first 2 are successful, while the bootlog ends right after the third initiation attempt. I belive that by turning off the SATA RAID function, my SATA drive now appears as if it's attached to a third master IDE channel, hence the third instance of esdi_506. I replaced ESDI_506.PDR it with vertion 4.10.2225 dated July 20, 2006, but that did not help (it failed at the same place as indicated by the bootlog). As a last attempt, I removed (renamed) the esdi_506 files so they wouldn't be available during startup, and in this mode the system did come up, and as expected the Primary and Secondary IDE controllers were running in 16-bit compatibility mode. So if I disable the SATA RAID function, I can't operate the system unless all the drives are in DOS compatibility mode. It I enable SATA RAID, Windows is always looking for a RAID driver upon startup, and the ATA drives use real mode drivers while the SATA drive is stuck in DOS compatiblity mode. In any case, should I be seeing a SATA controller in the device manager? So basically I want to understand more about the Win-98 compatibility of this SATA controller that is part of the ICH5R and how to obtain the correct (optimal) functionality of SATA drives running under Win-98. Comments / experiences welcome. > Summary: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (striping). According to the gigabyte manual, this RAID-0 capability > is only supported in Windows-XP (can anyone confirm this?) <snip> I think that if the mfg says XP only you might as well forget about any win98 support. I have had *some* success with using XP drivers (and .inf files) with Win2k but I'd say to forget about getting it working with win98 > > The Intel ICH5R controller hub contains a SATA controller with > > limited RAID functionality. I want to understand more about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with Win2k but I'd say to forget about getting it working with > win98 Two comments about your post: 1) I am not particularly interested in the RAID functionality of the ICH5R. I just want my system to "see" the SATA drive as as SATA drive and not as an IDE/ATA re-mapped drive. That's why I'm wondering if something like a "SATA Controller" should appear in the device manager. If I have to assign my SATA-PORT-0 as an IDE slave or master on a virtual third ATA controller, then can I do it and not have problems with EDSI_506.PDR ??? 2) Regarding the RAID function and using XP files on Win-2K, I am astounded that win-2K was not supported, given that the ICH5R came out in early 2003. Can anyone explain that? <snip> > Two comments about your post: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > controller, then can I do it and not have problems with > EDSI_506.PDR ??? Unless you can get the specific drivers for your SATA controller... it's either not going to work at all...or at best work poorly. If the mfg does not have them I can't imagine how you'd get it going unless you wrote your own drivers > 2) Regarding the RAID function and using XP files on Win-2K, > I am astounded that win-2K was not supported, given that > the ICH5R came out in early 2003. Can anyone explain that? Some companies just plain will not bother with older OS's no matter how good they are...But I suspect you could get the controller working with win2k... at least there's a much greater chance there than with win(* Maybe there is Linux support? Bill, I came across some stuff you wrote about this a while ago: http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/HDD-Support-ftopict184184.html ------------ YMMV, depending on the BIOS, but 9x shouldn't need drivers to access a SATA drive, it just won't load it as a PCI device, and instead will see it as an ISA device needing a dedicated IRQ (a "P"-ATA device). I can access my SATA drives fine from DOS floppy boot with no drivers loaded. FWIU, a SATA supporting BIOS starts out by emulating the drive as a "legacy" (parallel) ATA device. It then sets a flag, (in some obscure BIOS table) to signal that the device can be switched over to SATA's "native" mode. The IRQs can then be freed to be used by other devices. It's up to the OS, if it understands (> XP-SP1, Server 2003). If the OS doesn't get it (9x for one), then the drive will simply be accessed using legacy mode. In legacy/compatibility mode, you still get the throughput of SATA, but you have to use the IRQs, and so are limited to 4 drives (assuming a typical setup), due to IRQ sharing. Another loss would be hot-swapping if supported. -------------- Have you learned anything more about the use or availability of SATA drivers for Win-98 since you wrote that? (please read my original post in this thread for background if necessary). Can you explain how/why the performance of SATA isin't degraded when Windows uses DOS compatibility access mode? I've read in some places that a SATA controller can (or does, or is supposed to?) appear as a SCSI controller under 98. I've also read that SATA support was never native to any windows OS (including XP and 2003 server) hence the reason why floppies are required for SATA drivers for those OS's. This page: http://www.flaterco.com/kb/W98.html details the problem I was seeing with esdi_506.pdr: ------------- Hang after second phase of installation After updating its configuration files according to the hardware discovered during the first phase of installation, Windows 98 SE became unbootable and would hang with no output. With BOOTLOG.TXT output enabled, the end of the log looks like this: [0015B6D2] Initing hsflop.pdr [0015B6F1] Init Success hsflop.pdr [0015B6F1] Initing esdi_506.pdr [0015B6F7] Init Success esdi_506.pdr [0015B6F8] Initing esdi_506.pdr [0015B703] Init Success esdi_506.pdr [0015B703] Initing esdi_506.pdr esdi_506 is identified as the Windows protected mode IDE disk driver. I have not found the fix for this yet. -------------- I'll comment on one section. | Summary: | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | configured at SATA PORT-0 (as opposed to some IDE port). I have SATA | RAID function set to ENABLED. Enabling the RAID in the Bios will cause problems, because you are NOT actually configured for RAID. Where's the SECOND matching DRIVE for the RAID? You will continue to get errors because you enabled it in the BIOS upon installation leaving a registry which THINKS you must have another matching drive somewhere [which you don't]. Did you try disabling the RAID and enabling auto for the SATA when installing? | Comments / experiences welcome.  SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ > I'll comment on one section. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are NOT actually configured for RAID. Where's the SECOND matching > DRIVE for the RAID? From what I can tell, RAID controllers can handle a situation where there is only 1 physical drive. Also, from what I can tell, if you connect a single SATA drive to any system, and if you DON'T enable the corresponding RAID function, then the SATA controller will emulate the drive as if it's connected to virtual ATA controller. Or perhaps this is only the case with the SATA controller that's built into the ICH5R. > You will continue to get errors because you enabled it in the > BIOS upon installation leaving a registry which THINKS you must > have another matching drive somewhere [which you don't]. I don't think I'm encountering a problem by enabling the ICH5R raid while having a single SATA drive. Basically, if I have RAID enabled, then Win-98 asks for a RAID driver every time it starts, and I hit cancel and windows comes up normally and any ATA/IDE drives are using 32-bit real-mode drivers (ESDI_506.PDR ?) and the SATA drive is using "DOS Compatibility mode". If I disable RAID, then the system does not start because the SATA drive is made to appear as if it's connected to a third ATA/IDE controller, and because of this ESDI_506.PDR is loaded 3 times and windows hangs on the third load attempt. From this I conclude that ESDI_506.PDR is not compatible with the ICH5R SATA controller when the controller is in ATA emulation mode. Perhaps there is some MS KB article about this? > Did you try disabling the RAID and enabling auto for the SATA > when installing? I'll go back and see just what I've tried. As a side note, I disabled the ICH5R SATA controller (and RAID) and connected the SATA drive to the on-board Silicon Image SATA controller, and enabled the SI controller in the bios. Upon startup, Windows asked for and installed the SI drivers, then upon re-start I had a new "SCSI" controller in Device Manager. Under Drives in device manager, the SATA drive was there (by name and model, not by some generic "type 47"). And it was not using DOS compatibility mode. A little more info. Apparently, the Intel Application accelerator was the remedy for allowing win-98 to be compatible with large hard drives. ----------------------- Download and install the Intel Application accelerator. The Intel Application Accelerator provides 48-Bit LBA compliant ATA/ATAPI controller drivers (IntelATA.mpd) and replaces the Windows 98/Me, 2000 and XP ATA controller drivers (ESDI_506.PDR). Intel is the only chipset manufacturer that we are aware of that offers a compatible controller driver for Windows . The Intel Application Accelerator only supports the following chipsets: 810, 810E, 810E2, 810L, 815, 815EP, 815G, 815EG, 815P, 820, 820E, 840, 845, 845E, 845G, 845GE, 845GL, 845GV, 845PE, 850, 850E, 860. The Intel Application Accelerator can be obtained at http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/. If you have an unsupported chipset or do not want to upgrade the operating system then try the next solution. ------------------------- Ok, that's great, but what if I have an 875P chipset? Well, apparently I need the Intel Application accelerator RAID edition: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009292.htm http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa_raid/ Problem is, there doesn't seem to be a Win-98 version of the IAA-Raid edition. There seems to have been an "os-independant" version, but if it did exist it's no longer available. Did you get the updated inf for the newer chipset? http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=N&Produ ctID=816&DwnldID=8178&strOSs=18&OSFullName=Windows*98 SE&lang=eng I looked for that older RAID, and downloaded the 2000-XP version to see what it contains. Downloaded the accelerator to look at that as well... ---------- Intel® Application Accelerator RAID Edition Important Information on Intel® RAID Option ROM Version Version 3.5 of the Intel® RAID option ROM must be present in order for the Intel® Application Accelerator RAID Edition version 3.5 to support the entire feature set. Therefore, Intel recommends that you first upgrade your system BIOS to one that includes version 3.5 of the Intel RAID option ROM. You can obtain this system BIOS from your motherboard or system manufacturer. During installation, Intel Application Accelerator RAID Edition version 3.5 checks to see if version 3.5 of the Intel RAID option ROM is present. If it is not, a dialog box will appear that asks you to update your system BIOS. If your system BIOS includes version 3.0 of the Intel RAID option ROM, you can successfully upgrade to version 3.5 of the Intel Application Accelerator RAID Edition, but you will not be able to use the new features (e.g. RAID 1). This applies to: Intel® Application Accelerator RAID Edition -------------- Anyway, seems your in a pickle... wrong chipset for 98. Had you got the 875 WITHOUT RAID, maybe... Looks like your going to be looking somewhere other than Intel for drivers... SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ | A little more info. | [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | edition. There seems to have been an "os-independant" version, but if | it did exist it's no longer available. > Did you get the updated inf for the newer chipset? > > http://downloadfinder.intel.com (...) That link you posted is for version 6.3.0.1007 (Nov 24, 2004). I already have 6.3.0.1008 (feb 9, 2005) which is (I believe) the last 6.x version before 7.x. I think the 1008 version is the last with any win-98 files. Seems strange that Intel never provided proper Win-98 support for ICH5R given that we're talking about a 2003/2004 time-frame, and they were still including Win-98 in the chiset utility up to early 2005 (even claiming to support i915). I still would like to read a proper summary of Win-98 support for the i915 chipset. > I looked for that older RAID, and downloaded the 2000-XP version > to see what it contains. > Downloaded the accelerator to look at that as well... I don't think many (or any) in the Win-98 support community (and that includes the MSFN win-98 forum) spent much time on making the ICH5R SATA work under Win-98. > Anyway, seems your in a pickle... wrong chipset for 98. Had you > got the 875 WITHOUT RAID, maybe... RAID is not the (main) issue. Win-98 doesn't start with a SATA drive connected to the ICH5R because ESDI_506.PDR is being used, and Win-98 locks up while trying to initialize ESDI_506.PDR. The only way around that is to enable RAID, and then find a way to make the "Found new hardware - PCI RAID CONTROLLER" message go away upon startup. Even then, Windows is using compatibility mode to access the drive. All that is a pain - I guess a better solution is to just get a PCI SATA controller (or get a motherboard with a Silicon Image controller built-in). For what its worth, also downloaded the F6floppy creator to look as those files as well. The sys calls for ntoskrnl and HAL, so a complete re-write for Win98 and the Intel chip would have to occur. So here is WHY the Intel chipset only supports 2000 and above. Doubtful anyone has or would do that, though perhaps someday someone will. However I see you've gone to the other chip support direction. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ | > Did you get the updated inf for the newer chipset? | > > http://downloadfinder.intel.com (...) [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | controller (or get a motherboard with a Silicon Image controller | built-in). > A little more info. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > edition. There seems to have been an "os-independant" version, but if > it did exist it's no longer available. I was never a fan of IAA that is no secret I've always expressed in this forum, since a PCI Controller Card is a better alternative not just for W98x but also W2K/WXP as well, it accomplishes the same thing for all setups and not just Intel's or MS Windows; it does it in a different way but with many more benefits, without any proprietary limitations. As you know I have the 865PERLL board and it has the extra onboard 2 SATA 0 & 1 ports as well. However I'm still using PATA 133 drives and certainly run them through a CC. My plan was when the time came to ever run SATA there was no question I would do the same thing as PATA and run it thought a PCI SATA Controller Card instead of the onboard drivers, although I've never yet taken the time to line one up for me yet since I had no 'near term' plans to go SATA to think about it yet . What I'm getting at to ask you is that I'm wondering if you've checked into if there are any SATA pci controllers that will do what you want for SE? http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?SrchInDesc=Windows%2098&Page=1&Cat egory=15&Nty=1&N=2000150410&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=410 Rick (excessive quote-inclusion removed) > I was never a fan of IAA that is no secret I've always expressed > in this forum, I admit that I've never followed those posts (perhaps that was before I really started following this NG) but could you summarize why, technically, the IAA was lacking as a solution for most of the 800-series intel chipset motherboards as a way to break the 137 gb partition boundary? > What I'm getting at to ask you is that I'm wondering if you've > checked into if there are any SATA pci controllers that will do > what you want for SE? The Gigabyte motherboard I have also has a Silicon Image 3112 controller built into the board, which seems to be quite common for 875P-based boards because the ICH5R has what seems to be recognized as a poor RAID feature set and the SI chip was incorporated probably to cover the ICH5R's shortcomings. In addition, my board also has an ITE Giga-Raid controller (P-ATA interface) incorporated as well. Theoretically I can connect 12 drives directly to this motherboard. So lately I've disabled the ICH5R SATA and RAID and have been playing with the Silicon Image controller. It comes with 98 drivers, and it appears as a SCSI controller in the device manager. I will post some preliminary performance results in my next post. > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp (...) Yes, I will probably buy a few SATA controller cards (ones with win-98 support) just to have on hand. Note one item though. Some believe that SATA controllers that are integrated on the motherboard, and particularly the ICH5R's controller, are technically not on the PCI bus and therefore can have better performance than PCI-based SATA controllers. This is important when looking at SATA-2 (3 gbs/sec) vs SATA-1 (1.5 gbs/sec). [....] >> I was never a fan of IAA that is no secret I've always expressed >> in this forum, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 800-series intel chipset motherboards as a way to break the 137 gb > partition boundary? Well reading your last paragraph above prompts me to clarify what you may have thought I was saying, but I am saying yes IAA does solve the boundary just fine for Win98SE and that was not the point I was making. (fwiw IAA (v2.3) support for W98SE stopped at the 810 through 860 series boards I used to use; however I only used IAA for testing purposes though since without question always much preferred to use a CC in all my setups instead. The point I was first alluding too is that a PCI Controller Card doesn't just solve the 48-bit LBA support for W98SE which is a given, but overlooked and imo is just as, if not the more important advantage of using a CC compared to stock, is that by its very nature is able to 'across the board' more than 'doubled' data transfer rates from boot to shutdown, and everything in-between. This is not just for W98SE, but has proven itself on W2K and WXP as well giving the same outstanding performance benefit compared to stock. This performance gain was not subjective wishful thinking, but bench test proven for a before and after result. A PCI CC doesn't need to alter or replace the original windows drivers with new ones in any OS, since it instead bypasses them, and routes it own process through the bus architecture using its own Controller and Bios which I've always found through hands on experience this gives, fwr, much better data transfer rates and performance-wise abilities; it bypasses the sub-system bottleneck issues in standard controllers circuits, and therefore needs no software IAA enhanced means to increase performance but duplicates that gain by it's very own nature. When I tested IAA in 2003 on W98SE/W2K/WXP it did work fine and I'm not taking that away from it. My fussiness with it then was when I noticed it grayed out DMA property settings on my HD as well as all CDRW/CDROM drives too, it also interfered with my particular CDRW applications functions and it limited me on some software I had installed. I just wasn't happy with all the changes it needed to make to give me a performance gain, whereas using the CC besides solving the LBA issue where needed, it also gives better across the board performance increases already described without concerning me with these unwanted changes. Also a CC gives two extra dual master ports to able to run two HD's as masters if needed for specific dedicated tasks in Windows, or is especially helpful when not in Windows while doing disk to disk cloning functions. It also allows the current CD/DVD and/or CD/DVD RW ROM's now to Each be connected as master to the onboard controller since those are not needed for HD functions anymore and are freed up to give dedication elsewhere. Rick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.