Is this typical now? Duplicate IDE controllers in Device Manager

Dyre Straits · Apr 6, 2005, 03:36 PM

The only times I've ever seen this has been when there is or has been a problem.

This situation exists on my ABIT IC7-G system:

Judas · Apr 6, 2005, 05:17 PM

odd.... don't touch them if you arne't having problems....

if you are, remove them ALL and reboot...

Dyre Straits · Apr 6, 2005, 06:36 PM

The thing that got me searching about this is that my system has a tendency to want to halt at the Saving Settings when I go to reboot or shutdown.

I've been able to somewhat correct that by disabling the Terminal Services. Since I have no need to access this system remotely, that's helped quite a bit.

But, this duplicate IDE thing got my attention right off. Like I said, it's only shown up in the past on other systems whenever there's been a problem that caused these controllers to have to be installed again. That can also happen when upgrading to newer drivers for these. That 'might' be what happened in this case and simply went without notice till I started doing a little digging.

>GSXR<mrbusa · Apr 6, 2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyre Straits

The only times I've ever seen this has been when there is or has been a problem.

This situation exists on my ABIT IC7-G system:

so this isnt how it is supposed to be?my system has always had both sets of entries.
http://img69.exs.cx/img69/5981/untitled6gu.jpg

Tipstaff · Apr 6, 2005, 07:30 PM

DON'T DELETE THEM!

Whatever you do, don't delete them. Everything is actually the way it's supposed to be if you are running a current Intel Chipset board, especially ones based on the 865, and in your case, the 875 chipset.

See, 1 listing is for the IDE controller, the other the SATA controller. It's weird, I know, but that's the way it shows up for Intel Chipsets.

-Tip

Dyre Straits · Apr 6, 2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tipstaff

DON'T DELETE THEM!

Whatever you do, don't delete them. Everything is actually the way it's supposed to be if you are running a current Intel Chipset board, especially ones based on the 865, and in your case, the 875 chipset.

See, listing is for the IDE controller, the other the SATA controller. It's weird, I know, but that's the way it shows up for Intel Chipsets.

-Tip

I've been coming to this conclusion since posting this here and elsewhere. I DO believe it's the SATA controller that makes this happen this way.

Tipstaff · Apr 6, 2005, 08:26 PM

Here's one for you: try to figure out which one is SATA and the other PATA (IDE).

I won't say which one is which, but when the 865 chipset came out this drove us nutz at first. I still don't know if this is a limitation of XP (that it has to be listed as an ATA controller), or if Intel just got lazy.

-Tip

Judas · Apr 8, 2005, 03:25 AM

odd..... it should state the resource information... generally a double listing uses the same resource and although appears to be working... is actually conflicting.... usually.

I'd have to say Intel must have gotten lazy to not specify a little more detail to rid of possible confusion. Then again, i guess they don't expect much of anyone to be paying attention to teh controllers.

They probably set it up like that so that windows could detect and install the drivers as they are apparently IDE Unified for sata. (only guess here..)

IF you were to simply remove them and reboot.. .they would reinitialize apon reboot, requireing you to restart after they reinstall themselves.. and then you'd be pack up and running again.

Tipstaff · Apr 8, 2005, 03:57 AM

I remember the first Intel 865 boards that came out had a seperate SATA controller (I think it was based on an NEC one if memory serves). Thing had so many problems cuz Windows never recognized it. Anytime you loaded Windows 2 outta 10 times it'd screw up if it wasn't done properly. Anyone that has installed Windows will recall the "Press F6 to load third-party controller" duing the install bit. If you didn't have that floppy ready you'd be screwed (especially if you were building a terminal machine, or one without a floppy drive). You can imagine how this made unattended installs a bitch to do. Also, something you just touched on Judas, is that if you ever updated the controller, or had to reinstall it, sometimes Windows wouldn't boot afterwards.

I think that for compatiblity reasons, plus to "simplify" the controller Intel decided that it wasn't necessary to seperate PATA from SATA when it came to Windows drivers. The bios knows the difference between them, so they probably figured Windows didn't need to. 'Sides, Windows would just screw things up anyways.

"Duh, it sayz IDE contwoller.. so I guess I shad boot ta it."

-Tip

Judas · Apr 8, 2005, 04:03 AM

I still find it strange as if i remove my "scsi" raid controllers, the bios still know to boot from the raid array and that windows will load up even without the drivers.

IF the system doesn't boot, it's not windows fault as it would state what is wrong, it would ask to go through the safemode startup or alternate config startup. If you never see those messages, that's generally a bios configuration setup problem. IF the bios is setup correctly, then it has to be a hardware failure or worse, a manufactures own design flaw.

I've found any machine the requires you to format and install more then twice EVER, is to flaky to depend on at all. Whenever i come across a system, i start tearing it appart till i find the problem, and it's sometimes been the motherboard itself.

No_Style · Apr 13, 2005, 04:18 PM

Duplicates like that are not normal. I have my P4P800-E Deluxe here and it's not showing duplicates. I would go with what Judas said originally, delete them all then let Windows re-install them. If you think that's the SATA-RAID driver, you should check under SCSI/RAID controllers to find that the SATA driver/device is located there. This also cannot be the normal SATA drivers because there is no Primary or Secondary IDE channels for SATA.

I believe, the reason why Windows still boots up even if you removed the "SCSI" drivers is because Windows just re-installs them.

swimtech · Apr 13, 2005, 04:30 PM

Curious, does Abit say anything about this?

Logla · Apr 13, 2005, 05:16 PM

feel I have to add to what the styless one says - I have abit ic7-max3 running 875 - no duplicates at all.
I have one primary ide controller and one secondary.

HOWEVER - I had numerous problems with this board last summer and the duplicate IDEs was one of them. Download the latest (and correct) chipset drivers from intel, dyre and see if that makes any difference. ABIT have a habit of banging out several different versions of motherboard but still classing them as the same revision. I have had 3 different versions of the ic7 max3 but all were labelled as revision 1.0. What really sux is that each of the different mobo's came with different versions of the driver disk.

Oh and update your BIOS too.

Tipstaff · Apr 13, 2005, 08:38 PM

Trust me on this guys.. it is normal for 865 and 875 chipsets. I've worked on the 865 boards for a coulple years now (since they came out.. but not as much on the 875 since they were really no different than the 865), and it has always shown up this way. Intel used an NEC SATA controller in their first 865 based systems, and it came up as seperate controllers. This 'duplication' started after Intel intergrated their SATA support into the ICH5 controller chip.

However, IF you are using the RAID driver then this duplication will not occur (unfortunatly I can't recall the listing exactly). If you are not using the RAID driver, or RAID settings in the bios, then it will show up as having 2 IDE controllers. The other thing is the drivers that are loaded for those controllers are now intergrated into XP by Microsoft, because Intel no longer needs to supply them (according to Intel the MS drivers meet their requirements.. so they don't need to make drivers unless it becomes necessary to do so). I'm sure that if Intel were to put out a driver for the SATA controller it'd probably be listed differently, but in this case the driver is made by Microsoft. The only driver you will find from Intel for those boards is the one that supports RAID. BTW: You can check out their driver site HERE (this one is for the 865PERL board), and you will see that there is no IDE/SATA driver EXCEPT the RAID one. Plus, read the NOTE section for the reason why.

Anyways, here's how the listing breaks down: The first controller listing is for the normal IDE, the second for the SATA. Also, the 1rst Primary and Secondary listings are for the IDE channel, while the 2nd Primary and Secondary listings are for the SATA channel. The way to tell the difference is that there are no resources (or rather there shoudn't be any) allocated to the SATA channels (if you open the 2nd Primary listing you will notice the lack of a 'Resources' Tab).

Take a look at my listings here:

Tomorrow, when I get the chance (I'll be building 2 systems like this), I'll post a listing of what it looks like when RAID is running, and what it looks like on a 915 board.

But trust me.. it's fine the way it is.

-Tip

Edit: There is one other thing relating to this, and I think you guys should read Microsofts article on SATA HERE . The other reason it can show up as an IDE controller is that, for whatever reason, the SATA controller is not actually in a 'Native mode'', but rather it's emulating a PATA (ide) mode. If you read the article you'll understand more.

Logla · Apr 14, 2005, 03:47 AM

np bud. I trust your diagnosis.

Any idea whats causing his problems with shutting down though. I'm keen to know because I sometimes get this.

swimtech · Apr 14, 2005, 07:19 AM

Interesting TipStaff, appreciate you taking the time to explain this through, and for the link. Nothing speaks as strongly as hands on experience...

Tipstaff · Apr 14, 2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logla

np bud. I trust your diagnosis.

Any idea whats causing his problems with shutting down though. I'm keen to know because I sometimes get this.

Well, No_Styles hit on something: if he was running RAID before, or had those drivers installed, and this was a result of a crash or reset by XP, then I would suggest reinstalling those drivers... but.. if he wasn't using them before, for sure don't install them.

I would take a look at what programs are running at startup, or ones that are active while shutting down. Disabing the startup proggies one at a time, restart, then shuting down to see if it fixes the delay. As a troubleshoot, I would disable the network card, then shutdown. It might just be a matter of reinstalling the network card drivers, or updating them.

If disabling Terminal Services helped with the delay I would look at disabling Remote Assistance within Control Panel/System. As well, put Remote Access to manual, and disable Fast User Switching, and Remote Desktop in the Services since they are all tied (from what I remember) to Terminal Services. One other thing would be to change the way Windows starts up. By changing from the 'Welcome' type login, with icons for each user, to the classic style can help to correct shutdown issues too. If he's the only user on the machine, and doesn't mind losing the login screen I would try changing it to an autologin sytle by hitting Start/Run, and typing in control userpasswords2. This will bring up the classic User Accounts control system, and allow you to deselect "Users must sign in...." option.

Oh, and I would try fiddling with some of the Power Management functions such as unchecking the "Allow the computer to turn off...." section of the Power Management Tab for every USB Root Hub listing, disabling Hibernate Mode in Control Panel/Power Options (if on), and disabling it's use in the bios.

Shoot.. I've run outta time (those systems to build I mentioned). I'll have to post some other ideas a little later but those are a start, and explain the last part above.. sorry bout that.

-Tip

Tipstaff · Apr 14, 2005, 04:50 PM

Here we go.. as promised (sort of). I just did a system based on the Intel 865GLC board (small form factor), and installed Windows 2000 w/SP4. The listings are the same (as you'll see) for the 2 Ultra ATA controllers, but with one difference: The drivers are by Intel, not Mircrosoft. Check it out here:

Anyways, hopefully I'll get around to the 915 system soon (a bit swamped here).

-Tip

Tipstaff · Apr 17, 2005, 02:59 AM

Aight.. this is the last time I'm posting in this thread.. so.. as promised the SATA listings on an Intel D915GAG board (I chuckled when I read that name too

). Something of interest here too: since this is a new board not only to the market, but to XP, Intel needed to make drivers for it:

In this case there are 2 different listings (still Ultra ATA), and I think this is because of the ICH6 controller, and how it works compared to the old ICH5 controller. I would still like to see it listed as SATA though. Oh, before I forget, the drivers that Intel installs to suppot the SATA controller.. they aren't Signed ones. Thought that was interesting (never noticed it before).

Anyways.. I kinda had to put off testing a RAID setup, and it's not really worth it anymore since I've shown how buggered up Intel and MS can be with this. So, I'll leave it as is..
-----

Dyre - On another note: I thought of something else to help you out. Have you tried TweakXP that is linked off of DriverHeaven? If you have run it, or do run it, make sure that you don't select the option to 'Clear Pagefile on Shutdown' as this will take forever for Windows to shutdown.. especially if your pagefile is huge. Also in that proggie is the 'Fast Shutdown' option (including the disabling of Fast User Switching). Well worth checking out.

I'm outta here.

-Tip