Oh How I Wish this were true..
I just reinstalled the i815e chipset drivers, security patch, and Ultra ATA drivers (thought they might be new versions). . . and it crashed in the middle of it. . . so, fuck I thought. repaired Windows 2000.
I just reinstalled the i815e chipset drivers, security patch, and Ultra ATA drivers (thought they might be new versions)...and it crashed in the middle of it...so, fuck I thought. repaired Windows 2000...
installed them again(I don't learn quickly), and now my IDE hdds are listed as SCSI.
Any ideas on how to get them back to(listed as) IDE?
installed them again(I don't learn quickly), and now my IDE hdds are listed as SCSI.
Any ideas on how to get them back to(listed as) IDE?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
If you want the ATA100 to work, you want those HDs to be listed as SCSI. If they get listed as IDE, then your install of the Intel Ultra ATA drivers did not work.
This is also how the Promise Ultra100/Ultra66/Ultra33 and HighPoint controller drivers work also: when the high performance drivers are loaded, Win2K recognizes the disks as SCSI.
You're ok, it just sounds like you're hunting for something to be wrong...
You want to just start asking me for answers on the CUSL2?
Later.
This is also how the Promise Ultra100/Ultra66/Ultra33 and HighPoint controller drivers work also: when the high performance drivers are loaded, Win2K recognizes the disks as SCSI.
You're ok, it just sounds like you're hunting for something to be wrong...
You want to just start asking me for answers on the CUSL2?
Later.
yeah....I was hunting down a problem that didn't exist...but hey. it was late at night, and my computer crashed during the chipset driver re-installation(turns out I already had that version of the driver)...thought maybe something got screwy in there....but it's all running well...and I'm burning yet another backup(3rd since last night) of my Win2kAdvSer CD...my original is getting pretty scratched up...and 1 went bad at the end, the 2nd isn't bootable..so trying for the third..
It's just that I hadn't seen it do that before.
I have that ATA 100(master) and ATA 66(slave) drives on the same IDE...am I safe in assuming that I am running at ATA 66 for both?
the 100 says UDMA 5 while the 66 says UDMA 4
It's just that I hadn't seen it do that before.
I have that ATA 100(master) and ATA 66(slave) drives on the same IDE...am I safe in assuming that I am running at ATA 66 for both?
the 100 says UDMA 5 while the 66 says UDMA 4
If we were talking SCSI, I would answer in the affirmative - that the drives drop down to the lowest common denominator.
However, we're talking ATA/UDMA and I've seen conflicting reports in even Promise's documentation. On one page, they say that the ATA### controllers are capable of getting the max out of each device independently, but then later in the same documentation, they say for max performance, only have devices of ATA### attached to the controller...
You might want to check the Intel Ultra ATA companion to see what the "Current Transfer Mode" for the UDMA/5 device is.
HTH.
However, we're talking ATA/UDMA and I've seen conflicting reports in even Promise's documentation. On one page, they say that the ATA### controllers are capable of getting the max out of each device independently, but then later in the same documentation, they say for max performance, only have devices of ATA### attached to the controller...
You might want to check the Intel Ultra ATA companion to see what the "Current Transfer Mode" for the UDMA/5 device is.
HTH.
UDMA 5 for both default and current.
