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