Via chipsets & 2k hiding drives in Bios
I can not hide either of my 2 hard drives in the bios because of M$'s incompatability with Via chipsets. I have 2k w/SP2 installed on a Fat32 partition using a Epox 8-KTA M/B. I have 2 bootable drives (or at least that is what I'm tring to have in 2k but not much sucess) and disabling the drive in the bios doesn't ...
I can not hide either of my 2 hard drives in the bios because of M$'s incompatability with Via chipsets.
I have 2k w/SP2 installed on a Fat32 partition using a Epox 8-KTA M/B.
I have 2 bootable drives (or at least that is what I'm tring to have in 2k but not much sucess) and disabling the drive in the bios doesn't disable (or hide) it in the O/S!
M$ question #272586 deals with the issue but 2 out of the 3 keys are diffwerent than what M$ lists.
I tried the mod anyway with the other keys but it doesn't work.
Anyone else run into this?
I have the latest bios from Epox.
I have 2k w/SP2 installed on a Fat32 partition using a Epox 8-KTA M/B.
I have 2 bootable drives (or at least that is what I'm tring to have in 2k but not much sucess) and disabling the drive in the bios doesn't disable (or hide) it in the O/S!
M$ question #272586 deals with the issue but 2 out of the 3 keys are diffwerent than what M$ lists.
I tried the mod anyway with the other keys but it doesn't work.
Anyone else run into this?
I have the latest bios from Epox.
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
Have you downloaded X-Setup? I remember their being an option in there to hide drives.
Also, under Run, type in gpedit.msc and you'll have access to a lot of different goodies to play with.
I do have X-Setup but that has nothing to do with the problem.
It is a M$ problem and their lack of support of VIA chipsets...... period!!!
The O/S ignores what the bios is telling it and shows the drive anyway!
The M$ fix doesn't work!
Thanks for the Group Policy idea...........about as bad as X Setup........more to get you in trouble!
It is a M$ problem and their lack of support of VIA chipsets...... period!!!
The O/S ignores what the bios is telling it and shows the drive anyway!
The M$ fix doesn't work!
Thanks for the Group Policy idea...........about as bad as X Setup........more to get you in trouble!
one more reason why via sucks.
Wrong..............it's M$ that sucks!
Stop supporting a monoploy!
Stop supporting a monoploy!
if you don't like it don't use it
i like my ms software and i like my intel hardware it works well.
i am sure that no via chipset could ever come close to the stability reliability and ease of use that my i840 board has.
i like my ms software and i like my intel hardware it works well.
i am sure that no via chipset could ever come close to the stability reliability and ease of use that my i840 board has.
Just so you know, videobruce, NT OSs have long since had the ability to see harddrives even when they were disabled in the BIOS. I remember setting up a TX-based motherboard to dual boot with NT server for a test system, and NT kept seeing the other drive even when it was disabled. The easiest way for me to "hide" them was to use slide chassis for the drives.
As for all of your "M$" comments, why are you using their products if you tell others that they shouldn't? "Stop supporting a monopoly!" is your cry, yet here you are using their programs. I just find it rather odd that you would come to a forum that is obviously biased toward NT-based OSs and then complain about them and ask others not to use them.
As for all of your "M$" comments, why are you using their products if you tell others that they shouldn't? "Stop supporting a monopoly!" is your cry, yet here you are using their programs. I just find it rather odd that you would come to a forum that is obviously biased toward NT-based OSs and then complain about them and ask others not to use them.
1. I don't know NT sees drives that are hidden in the bios. This is the first I have heard of it. I have been to many forms and never have seen this. I'm sure if this is as common as you suggest something would of been written somewhere, actually, many places and I would of have seen it.
2. M$ has a response towards VIA chipsets which leads one to believe that it is a M$/Via issue, NOT all M/B's, Bios, chipsets etc.
3. I was refering to the Wintel monopoly, the chipsets that is, no mention of the operating system was made when the "Via sucks" comment was made. The O/S you are almost stuck to use since it is in 95%+ of the systems out there. It doesn't do me any good to have a O/S that is barely supported by most programs. I would be the same as not owning a auto these days because of the billions that are dumped into the highway system in this country vs the pennies mass transit gets! The processor/chipset I DO have a choice.
Since M$ and Intel are so closely related, and are in in bed with one another, of course they will work together better. They have a advantage because of this. This is what I mean by a monoply!
2. M$ has a response towards VIA chipsets which leads one to believe that it is a M$/Via issue, NOT all M/B's, Bios, chipsets etc.
3. I was refering to the Wintel monopoly, the chipsets that is, no mention of the operating system was made when the "Via sucks" comment was made. The O/S you are almost stuck to use since it is in 95%+ of the systems out there. It doesn't do me any good to have a O/S that is barely supported by most programs. I would be the same as not owning a auto these days because of the billions that are dumped into the highway system in this country vs the pennies mass transit gets! The processor/chipset I DO have a choice.
Since M$ and Intel are so closely related, and are in in bed with one another, of course they will work together better. They have a advantage because of this. This is what I mean by a monoply!
Quote:
1. I don't know NT sees drives that are hidden in the bios. This is the first I have heard of it. I have been to many forms and never have seen this. I'm sure if this is as common as you suggest something would of been written somewhere, actually, many places and I would of have seen it.
There are many things that happen regularly, yet aren't spoken of because they aren't a problem because a lot of people don't experience them as issues to begin with. For example, the way that you prefer to dual boot is something that many others would find too cumbersome, and would rather have a simple menu. I myself liked the method you used, because if I wanted to can one of the OSs I didn't have to worry about which OS hosted the boot partition and menu files. So to point, there just aren't that many of us who want to go into the BIOS to select which drive to boot from.
Quote:
2. M$ has a response towards VIA chipsets which leads one to believe that it is a M$/Via issue, NOT all M/B's, Bios, chipsets etc.
"M$" (<--using your naming convention) wants to make money; they are not in business for a Nobel Peace Prize or to make the world a better place (unless either makes money, but that would be an indirect result). First, I don't find that they would directly refuse support of a given chipset (such as Via), as that would not let them make more money. Also, if you are under the impression that this is really happening and that it's because Intel and MS are such good friends, you might want to rethink that. Yes, in the past they were the best of buds, however they have had major differences of opinion (such as Intel getting pretty heavy into *nix and MS and various proposed standards that they couldn't see eye-to-eye on). I wouldn't call them enemies, but I wouldn't call them the best of friends either.
Quote:
3. I was refering to the Wintel monopoly, the chipsets that is, no mention of the operating system was made when the "Via sucks" comment was made. The O/S you are almost stuck to use since it is in 95%+ of the systems out there. It doesn't do me any good to have a O/S that is barely supported by most programs. I would be the same as not owning a auto these days because of the billions that are dumped into the highway system in this country vs the pennies mass transit gets! The processor/chipset I DO have a choice.
Since M$ and Intel are so closely related, and are in in bed with one another, of course they will work together better. They have a advantage because of this. This is what I mean by a monoply!
As for the "Wintel Monopoly", please see above. You could also choose to run Linux/FreeBSD on an AMD/Via combo, or get a Mac if you are so inclined. Hence, you would be supporting the opposition to "take the man down". Amen brutha.
1. I don't know NT sees drives that are hidden in the bios. This is the first I have heard of it. I have been to many forms and never have seen this. I'm sure if this is as common as you suggest something would of been written somewhere, actually, many places and I would of have seen it.
There are many things that happen regularly, yet aren't spoken of because they aren't a problem because a lot of people don't experience them as issues to begin with. For example, the way that you prefer to dual boot is something that many others would find too cumbersome, and would rather have a simple menu. I myself liked the method you used, because if I wanted to can one of the OSs I didn't have to worry about which OS hosted the boot partition and menu files. So to point, there just aren't that many of us who want to go into the BIOS to select which drive to boot from.
Quote:
2. M$ has a response towards VIA chipsets which leads one to believe that it is a M$/Via issue, NOT all M/B's, Bios, chipsets etc.
"M$" (<--using your naming convention) wants to make money; they are not in business for a Nobel Peace Prize or to make the world a better place (unless either makes money, but that would be an indirect result). First, I don't find that they would directly refuse support of a given chipset (such as Via), as that would not let them make more money. Also, if you are under the impression that this is really happening and that it's because Intel and MS are such good friends, you might want to rethink that. Yes, in the past they were the best of buds, however they have had major differences of opinion (such as Intel getting pretty heavy into *nix and MS and various proposed standards that they couldn't see eye-to-eye on). I wouldn't call them enemies, but I wouldn't call them the best of friends either.
Quote:
3. I was refering to the Wintel monopoly, the chipsets that is, no mention of the operating system was made when the "Via sucks" comment was made. The O/S you are almost stuck to use since it is in 95%+ of the systems out there. It doesn't do me any good to have a O/S that is barely supported by most programs. I would be the same as not owning a auto these days because of the billions that are dumped into the highway system in this country vs the pennies mass transit gets! The processor/chipset I DO have a choice.
Since M$ and Intel are so closely related, and are in in bed with one another, of course they will work together better. They have a advantage because of this. This is what I mean by a monoply!
As for the "Wintel Monopoly", please see above. You could also choose to run Linux/FreeBSD on an AMD/Via combo, or get a Mac if you are so inclined. Hence, you would be supporting the opposition to "take the man down". Amen brutha.
LOL!
You can try and blame Via for this one, but it won't fly. While Via does have problems, I'm sick of people automatically blaming them for every problem that pops up.
You can try and blame Via for this one, but it won't fly. While Via does have problems, I'm sick of people automatically blaming them for every problem that pops up.
Now since we all got way off the subject and all had our soapbox speech, can we get back to the problem please?
The separate bootable drives which I have been running for the last 3 1/2 years have been a lifesaver for me a couple of times when the main drive either got a virus, or got corupted and I had to get into the system, I use a toggle switch...yes toggle switch (DPDT or with my first WD drives, a 4PDT on the front of the case under the bezel running to the M/S pins for the jumper settings which I used a ATA connector cut down to fit into the 6 pin slot to select between master and slave. (Having a controller card, all you have to do is select in the cards bios which drive is to be booted from).
Up to 2k this has not been a problem, but now I can't clone this drive to beat the band!
I tried to load 2k with both drives connected but there were problems with data getting on the other drive, so I disconnected the 2nd drive and loaded the O/S and everything else, but now I can't clone this drive to a image file and copy that to the other drive without errors.
I tried sysprep but that doesn't help.
P.S. thanks Brian........
The separate bootable drives which I have been running for the last 3 1/2 years have been a lifesaver for me a couple of times when the main drive either got a virus, or got corupted and I had to get into the system, I use a toggle switch...yes toggle switch (DPDT or with my first WD drives, a 4PDT on the front of the case under the bezel running to the M/S pins for the jumper settings which I used a ATA connector cut down to fit into the 6 pin slot to select between master and slave. (Having a controller card, all you have to do is select in the cards bios which drive is to be booted from).
Up to 2k this has not been a problem, but now I can't clone this drive to beat the band!
I tried to load 2k with both drives connected but there were problems with data getting on the other drive, so I disconnected the 2nd drive and loaded the O/S and everything else, but now I can't clone this drive to a image file and copy that to the other drive without errors.
I tried sysprep but that doesn't help.
P.S. thanks Brian........
Quote:
The easiest way for me to "hide" them was to use slide chassis for the drives.
I'm not really sure what that is, but the X-setup and GPedit were the only things to my knowledge that could do it. Maybe clutch can explain, because I sure can't.
The easiest way for me to "hide" them was to use slide chassis for the drives.
I'm not really sure what that is, but the X-setup and GPedit were the only things to my knowledge that could do it. Maybe clutch can explain, because I sure can't.
I just thought of something: are you trying to hide the drive in device manager, or under My Computer? If it's the latter, good ol' TweakUI has a listing of all possible drive letters. Uncheck the drive letters you don't want seen and reboot.
I'm tring to hide the drive in the Bios! Award V6 KT-133 chipset.
How the O/S can see somrthing that the Bios doesn't is beyond me!
And why would it want to see something that is suppose to be hidden in the first place doesn't make sense either.
How the O/S can see somrthing that the Bios doesn't is beyond me!
And why would it want to see something that is suppose to be hidden in the first place doesn't make sense either.
Excuse my ignorance, but since when have you been able to hide drives from within BIOS?
Quote:
I'm tring to hide the drive in the Bios! Award V6 KT-133 chipset.
How the O/S can see somrthing that the Bios doesn't is beyond me!
Simple, because Windows accesses the hard drive controller directly rather than asking the BIOS for the info. It's been done this way since Win95 and happens with all motherboards.
DOS however does it the other way, it gets the info from the BIOS.
As to why Microsoft chose to do this, well that's anyone's guess.
I'm tring to hide the drive in the Bios! Award V6 KT-133 chipset.
How the O/S can see somrthing that the Bios doesn't is beyond me!
Simple, because Windows accesses the hard drive controller directly rather than asking the BIOS for the info. It's been done this way since Win95 and happens with all motherboards.
DOS however does it the other way, it gets the info from the BIOS.
As to why Microsoft chose to do this, well that's anyone's guess.
For 3 1/2 years I have been using 98SE/ME in 4 different computers and and have been able to hide drives by disableing them in the bios. Only with 2k I have not been able to do this!
