[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:

[Judas]

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

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

[Dyre Straits]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Curious, does Abit say anything about this?

[Logla]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tipstaff]

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]

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]

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

[Matth]

What drivers SHOULD an ICH6 be running?
Mine seems to have the MS standard PCIIDE.SYS drivers - I gather there is an INTELIDE.SYS, but it's not active by default.

[Tipstaff]

Intel includes the drivers that are necessary for the controller inside the chipset driver. You can get Intels driver HERE. As I've shown, with the 915/925 boards (which have the ICH6 controller) Intels driver will load no matter what OS you are using as long as you use the latest Intel Chipset driver. If you install XP, but don't load the chipset driver Microsoft will load a default 'compatible' driver, and that usually will be the 'Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller', some sort of 'Bus Mastered' driver, or the 'Ultra ATA' listing I posted.

However, I should point out that some board manufacturers will alter their drivers, as well as not use Intels ICH controller for the SATA channels, and will instead use a different 3rd party chip.

-Tip

[Matth]

Looks like your illustration.

The FB/FBM one, shows :-
Provider: Intel
Date: 24/03/2004
Version: 6.1.0.1004
Signer: Microsoft Windows hardware......

A recent INF update seems to be installed, but without INTELIDE selected, so the files are:
atapi.sys
pciide.sys
pciidex.sys

They all appear to be Windows XP standard or SP2 - same content on the other part of it - so it's not using the generic unidentified, but it seems to be identified to Microsoft standard.

An attempt to reapply - as it was given as an update on the suppliers page, stalled at 90%, and/or froze the USB - not quite sure if there was any response, as the USB keyboard & mouse were both dead.

[zepherzs]

Originally Posted by Tipstaff

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.

Hi Tipstaff,
I realize that post is a few months old now, but I came across it searching why 'after' I swapped out with an identical Motherboard that all the sudden your screenshot is how mine looked too, and because of my cdrom was acting funny or something is why I looked for what could be wrong and found the double listing.

Long story short is I didn't want it this way and wanted it back to the single listing as it was. Posting and reading around the I saw everyone was saying don't worry about it ..well that's fine I guess, but it still bugged me that it was nOt there on the same exact D865PERLL Motherboard an hour before until I swapped out the board with an identical D865PERLL.

One big thing that caught my eye that you said above Tipstaff was that:
> 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).

Now If you hadn't said that I may have left it duplicates, but you see I don't have any sata drives installed but on both 'Resouce Tab' you spoke differently, but mine was fully allocated and that just bugged me too much, not to mention my cdrom for whatever reason acted funny and I couldn't have that ..and so I knew if there were no duplicates using my original board as well cdroms were fine - then with this ResouceTab thing bugged me so I was determined to get it back with nO duplicates.

..And I did get it back to only having single listings of each ...and this is what I did:
Before I had swapped the MB of course I saved a backup partition image and so I knew I could do/test anything I wanted and always have a quick/easy way out and back if I wrecked something - so that made me fearless to test everything that made sense.
Removing all of them from DM in regular and even safe mode ..and like you said the duplicates all came back.

As I sat and ate lunch I said to myself 'what was different that I did in that original board that is not the same with the new one'...I pondered..... ah ...I remember I made changes to the bios and so of course the new identical board was identical but the bios was still set default.. so, I went in to the bios, changed the things I remember I did and 'why' I did before, after I did that, then I restored that backup partition image I made, booted up and a good sign was that it asked for no drivers or anything and just booted up like it always did (but now on the new board!) ..and lo and behold I now have single Controller listings again.

Now why I had set the original bios a certain way was for a reason which was because when I did it a few years ago I was triple booting between W98SE/W2K/WXP ...however I first installed W98SE which with the bios's default was set for Enchanced mode - but W98SE did not support that but only Legacy and so changed that; also with W98SE for correct support I had changed from the default No to Yes for Plug-n-Play as well.

..And so that's it, and that's how you can install whatever OS (if you only use pata and nOt sata drives of course) to get No duplicates in device manager under controllers. (I don't need any extra slot usages that Enhanced gives anyway not only because I don't use any sata drives but I also use a pci controller card to run my hard drive for various good reasons, but that gives me extra usable ports there - but I don't need/use them anyway).

Okay that's it - I just wanted to post a reply about what I found to you Tipstaff ..and btw, thanks for making a post of this in the first place because if you hadn't my web search would of never found this place, thanks.

You know what now that I think of it back then, when I installed W2K & WXP I never thought of it further - but remember I had left the BIOS set to Legacy which was fine, but it did not need to be Plug-n-Play anymore ...hmmm, well everything has always worked excellent in 2K & XP so I don't know what the difference would have been with that?

[Tipstaff]

Makes sense zepherzs. Essentially you've disabled the SATA part of the ICH controller, and that's why you don't have the 2 listings in Windows any longer. This can be usefull since Windows 98 can mess up with the SATA part enabled, but it can be remedied so that it works.

'Course, if you decide to buy a new hard drive in the future it'll most likely be an SATA type, and then you will have to enable this in the bios again.

-Tip

[zepherzs]

Okay Tip then all is normal then I guess, and you say I essentially disabled SATA which btw I don't suspect I will ever use sata's on this particular setup anyway and so if I don't use it then disabled is more than fine; although before why in the Resource tab they were both allocated when you said the 2nd duplicate being SATA should of not had resources but it did ..and why it appeared anyway to affect my cdrom I don't know either.

I wanted to ask you, does it matter I had left the BIOS set for Legacy & an 'enabled' Plug.n.Play when I had also installed W2K & WXP like I had done?

> This can be usefull since Windows 98 can mess up with the SATA part
> enabled, but it can be remedied so that it works..

Okay, just curious do you have a link or pointer to the details of that remedy?
I'd like to save the info in case I changed my mind and wanted to play SATA someday.

Thanks again