Might be a dumb question but I don't know the answer.  

I'm referring to the driver that Win XP prompts you for early in the install process (press F6, blah blah blah).  From reading online I've seen these drivers called RAID drivers, SATA/RAID drivers, and SATA RAID drivers.  Are all those generic names for the same thing?  They seem like 3 different things to me.  In my own logic a RAID driver would be for a non-SATA motherboard, a SATA/RAID driver means a SATA driver and a RAID driver, and a SATA RAID driver is a RAID driver for a motherboard with SATA ports.  I'm probably just confusing myself, huh?

The motherboard I just got has 2 IDE/PATA ports and 2 SATA ports.  I have no plans on using RAID and have it disabled in the BIOS.  The floppy that came with the board says 'nVidia RAID driver v1.0'

I'm getting ready to install XP on a new SATA drive and want to know if I need this driver or not.

Yes, confusing it is, indeed!

On a computer based on a Gigabyte motherboard and Hitachi  SATA hard disks, no additional drivers were needed AFTER DISABLING RAID IN BIOS. (The first attempt with RAID enabled in BIOS was unsuccessful - did not detect the SATA hard disks.) I changed the BIOS setting based on the fact that RAID was not to be used.

On other motherboards, disabling RAID in BIOS made no difference - did not detect the SATA hard disks. Hitting F6 and installing either RAID drivers or SATA drivers was necessary. (One of the brands had separate RAID and separate SATA drivers. Regrettably, I don't remember which brand.)

It seems like most brands have integrated the SATA drivers with the RAID drivers and how they have named them varies.

As a side thought ... :-/ ... why does Gigabyte (and others?) enable RAID by default when the absolute majority of computers do not run RAID?

Christer

By the way, do not connect any IDE hard disks until the operating system is installed on the SATA hard disk. Otherwise, the installer may try to install the boot files on the first partition on the IDE hard disk.

Christer

Interesting discussion.  I'm running a G1975X(Gigabyte) and my system was originally setup for RAID0 on 2 matching Sata drives.  In the course of things, I opted out of this so called RAID configuration but did not disable RAID in the bios.  So the Intel Matrix RAID drivers still load, I have no RAID disks specified, the system is rock solid.  I found out by accident that if RAID is disabled in the bios, my system automatically reverts to the onboard PATA system and I never missed a beat.  All curious to me.  But I decided to keep an "almost" "nearly but not quite," "close but no cigar" RAID setup in case I ever decided to return to it.  Besides I have a notion that my system runs faster running as a no "RAID disks specified"  Please don't burst my bubble.  ::)

I put my thinking-cap on and came to the conclusion that my teflon coated memory played tricks on me.

The computer that I referred to, based on the Gigabyte motherboard, was probably the one needing SATA drivers even with RAID disabled in BIOS, separate RAID and separate SATA drivers being provided.

The computer needing no drivers after disabling RAID in BIOS was based on ASUS P4P800. It has a Seagate SATA as boot/system drive and a Seagate PATA in a mobile rack (for backwards compatibility). When both the SATA and the PATA are running, it boots from the SATA. When the PATA is powered off, it boots from the SATA. When the PATA is powered back on, it tries to boot from the PATA (only) and a detour into BIOS is necessary to set the boot order back to the SATA.


Quote:

I found out by accident that if RAID is disabled in the bios, my system automatically reverts to the onboard PATA system ...

I see a parallel situation with the P4P800. Reenabling RAID in BIOS and installing the RAID drivers might cure the situation. Maybe keeping RAID disabled in BIOS but installing RAID drivers will suffice.

Christer

So to determine if I need to install that driver, would the easiest way be to just hook up the SATA disk and see if it's recognized in the initial POST?  I don't know why I didn't think of that before, but would that be all there is to it?

I am reluctant to say yes since I have not verified if the issue with the ASUS based computer would be solved if RAID/SATA drivers were installed. I will not get to that computer in the forseeable future and I actually don't know if or how the RAID/SATA drivers could/would be installed post installation.

Personally, I would install SATA drivers and if specific SATA drivers aren't available, I would install RAID drivers. In both scenarios, if RAID was not to be used, I would disable RAID in BIOS.

I would also wait for a second opinion ...  :-X ... !

Christer

The C Man


Quote:

I'm getting ready to install XP on a new SATA drive and want to know if I need this driver or not. So to determine if I need to install that driver, would the easiest way be to just hook up the SATA disk and see if it's recognized in the initial POST?

Hook up you SATA HDD to one of the SATA ports--I don't think SATA has master or slave settings or primary or secondary channels like IDE controllers--make sure you disconnect any other HDD's--then boot from the WinXP installation CD.

If your SATA HDD is recognized by the installation program, then it will show up as available for a destination for the install.

If it does not get recognized--the installation program will inform you that there is no destination available for the install--that will mean you need to press F6 during the first part of the install process, and let the install program read the drivers off the floppy disk.

If you lack a floppy drive on the system, then you will have to *slip-stream* the controller drivers onto the installation CD--not a novice procedure--but can be done if you follow the right outline with the proper steps.

Thanks for that info, NightOwl, I hadn't thought of doing it like that but it makes perfect sense.  My only problem with doing it that way is that my CD isn't SP2 and I don't have a burner yet.  I do have the CD contents copied to my PATA HDD and have slipstreamed SP2 into it so what I was planning on doing was partitioning the new HDD and copying over the slipstreamed XPSP2 folder and then disconnecting the PATA HDD and installing XP right off the new SATA drive with it being the only HDD connected to the system.

Before doing that though I could do what you described and use the XP CD I have just to see if my SATA drive is recognized by XP's installation program.

Nightowl, I did as you suggested and hooked up the new SATA drive by itself and booted from the CD.  The install routine recognized the drive and showed it as a viable destination (although it showed as unpartitioned space since I didn't bother partitioning it for this exercise).  So in my particular case it appears that I don't have to install the mobo's RAID driver in order to access the SATA drive.

1 more unrelated question: During a typical XP installation (after booting from the CD but before it gets to the point where it shows you the drive/partition destination options for the install) the setup routine copies a number of files that I guess are needed for the early part on the installation.  Since it seems to take a while for those files to be copied I always thought it copied them to a temp directory on the HDD.... but since I only had the unpartitioned SATA drive hooked up when I ran my little test guess that means it copies those files into memory?  It just seems a little slow in doing it, that's why I was unsure.

I realize it can only go as fast as it can read the files off the CD, and when I've done installs off of a HDD I've noticed that this file copy process is faster, but I still thought it was copying the files to a temp directory.  I guess not?

without reading every post, i think the correct answr is "no," you don't need/want to install raid drivers if you're NOT planning to use the raid function. you should also check the mobo bios to ensure that features is disabled there. (it should be, by default).

wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

1 more unrelated question: During a typical XP installation (after booting from the CD but before it gets to the point where it shows you the drive/partition destination options for the install) the setup routine copies a number of files that I guess are needed for the early part on the installation.  Since it seems to take a while for those files to be copied I always thought it copied them to a temp directory on the HDD.... but since I only had the unpartitioned SATA drive hooked up when I ran my little test guess that means it copies those files into memory?  It just seems a little slow in doing it, that's why I was unsure. I realize it can only go as fast as it can read the files off the CD, and when I've done installs off of a HDD I've noticed that this file copy process is faster, but I still thought it was copying the files to a temp directory.  I guess not?

Kinda late to answer this question but the files are copied to a "virtual partition" created by the setup process. They don't reside on your HDD.
The same way of processing was used by the Windows 98 bootdisk.