New Intel Application Acceleration Drivers version 2.0
- Thread starter AndyHui
- Start date
Wow, you mean Intel has issues with their chipsets just like Via? Well, our resident Via basher, Pabster, doesn't seem to think so. 
<< Wow, you mean Intel has issues with their chipsets just like Via? Well, our resident Via basher, Pabster, doesn't seem to think so.
>>I thought he used the SiS 735?
<<
<< I thought he used the SiS 735? >>
Nah, Pabster uses a lime green iMac. >>
I could've sworn he had a Tandy TRS-800...
4-in-1's are optional too.
Andy, according to Intel, the IAAD is chipset software. When Via releases chipset software it usually addresses problems with previous chipset software. However, I could be wrong.
*edited grammar*
Andy, according to Intel, the IAAD is chipset software. When Via releases chipset software it usually addresses problems with previous chipset software. However, I could be wrong.
*edited grammar*
I disagree....these are simply optional IDE drivers....these are not needed AT ALL. These drivers simply give you "something extra" and in no way essential to the operation of the OS unlike the chipset inf drivers.
Sure they are chipset drivers, but are not released to address chipset issues like the VIA drivers
Sure they are chipset drivers, but are not released to address chipset issues like the VIA drivers
<< This new version fixes a whole heap of things like problems with coming out of suspend, DVD/CDRW problems and supports the new ICH3 (not that anyone has it at the moment). >>
Andy, it looks like Intel has updated software to address hardware issues. Via does the SAME thing, no? Both Intel and Via chipset software is optional.
"I disagree....these are simply optional IDE drivers....these are not needed AT ALL. These drivers simply give you "something extra" and in no way essential to the operation of the OS unlike the chipset inf drivers."
So are the Via 4-in1's.. If you are using XP on a Via based system, the 4-in-1's are not needed as the chipset drivers are included with XP. The newer versions just tweak performance like better IDE busmaster drivers and the like. Sounds just like Intel's IAA's..just there to add some extra performance, but not needed.
"Sure they are chipset drivers, but are not released to address chipset issues like the VIA drivers."
The last several releases of the 4-in-1's were not to resolve any chipset issues as you claim. The only two things I am aware of that the 4-in-1's were supposed to address were the SB Live, which IIRC was was more of a bad ACPI header issue with CL's drivers, and not so much the Via chipsets themselves, and the recent problems with the Nvidia drivers that happen on non-via systems too, so again, this is more of an issue with the Nvidia drivers themselves. Via just tried to fix the problem first with their boards rather than waiting for Nvidia to do it. If you are aware of any more "chipset issues" that the 4-in-1's are needed to resolve, by all means please enlighten me.
So are the Via 4-in1's.. If you are using XP on a Via based system, the 4-in-1's are not needed as the chipset drivers are included with XP. The newer versions just tweak performance like better IDE busmaster drivers and the like. Sounds just like Intel's IAA's..just there to add some extra performance, but not needed.
"Sure they are chipset drivers, but are not released to address chipset issues like the VIA drivers."
The last several releases of the 4-in-1's were not to resolve any chipset issues as you claim. The only two things I am aware of that the 4-in-1's were supposed to address were the SB Live, which IIRC was was more of a bad ACPI header issue with CL's drivers, and not so much the Via chipsets themselves, and the recent problems with the Nvidia drivers that happen on non-via systems too, so again, this is more of an issue with the Nvidia drivers themselves. Via just tried to fix the problem first with their boards rather than waiting for Nvidia to do it. If you are aware of any more "chipset issues" that the 4-in-1's are needed to resolve, by all means please enlighten me.
Insane3D: I can agree with you regarding a somewhat dodgy ACPI header implementation on the SBLive.
Would you class the PCI latency patches as something that fixes a chipset issue?
The last several releases of the 4-in-1's were not to resolve any chipset issues as you claim.
Since you word it that way, at some point the VIA drivers do address issues which are chipset related. The point that I am getting at is that the issues resolved with the IAAs ONLY turn up with the IAAs installed. Case: Plextor burners had real problems burning with the ATA Storage Drivers (as they then were) when they were installed. If you never installed the drivers, there were no problems. From this, it can be concluded that the issue relates to the drivers and not the chipset.
With the VIA 4-in-1s, they are already included with Windows XP, which is why you do not have to install them. No such driver exists for WinXP as far as I understand. The same drivers are used for Intel IDE, regardless of it being a 400 series or 800 series chipset.
Would you class the PCI latency patches as something that fixes a chipset issue?
The last several releases of the 4-in-1's were not to resolve any chipset issues as you claim.
Since you word it that way, at some point the VIA drivers do address issues which are chipset related. The point that I am getting at is that the issues resolved with the IAAs ONLY turn up with the IAAs installed. Case: Plextor burners had real problems burning with the ATA Storage Drivers (as they then were) when they were installed. If you never installed the drivers, there were no problems. From this, it can be concluded that the issue relates to the drivers and not the chipset.
With the VIA 4-in-1s, they are already included with Windows XP, which is why you do not have to install them. No such driver exists for WinXP as far as I understand. The same drivers are used for Intel IDE, regardless of it being a 400 series or 800 series chipset.
"Would you class the PCI latency patches as something that fixes a chipset issue?"
Yes and no. The problem with the PCI bus is really more of the default settings used by most motherboards than a actual chipset flaw or issue, but I can see your point. The PCI bandwith issue was never really a problem until recently with things like ATA133 RAID controllers and other bandwith hogging peripherals started saturating the bus and bringing the issue to light. To this day, most average systems with a HD, Optical Drives, and the like will not saturate the PCI bus and have any issues. I have found on most of the mainstream Via boards, the PCI latency is freely adjustable and disabling a feature called "PCI Delay Transaction" along with kicking the latency up to 96 from 32 basically solves the problem. But, at the same time, the latency patches are not part of the 4-in-1's, so saying the 4-in-1's fix chipset issues is really not correct. The PCI latency patches are seperate to my knowledge, and independant of the 4-in-1 driver pack. I guess it's all how you look at it.
Yes and no. The problem with the PCI bus is really more of the default settings used by most motherboards than a actual chipset flaw or issue, but I can see your point. The PCI bandwith issue was never really a problem until recently with things like ATA133 RAID controllers and other bandwith hogging peripherals started saturating the bus and bringing the issue to light. To this day, most average systems with a HD, Optical Drives, and the like will not saturate the PCI bus and have any issues. I have found on most of the mainstream Via boards, the PCI latency is freely adjustable and disabling a feature called "PCI Delay Transaction" along with kicking the latency up to 96 from 32 basically solves the problem. But, at the same time, the latency patches are not part of the 4-in-1's, so saying the 4-in-1's fix chipset issues is really not correct. The PCI latency patches are seperate to my knowledge, and independant of the 4-in-1 driver pack. I guess it's all how you look at it.
I believe the PCI latency patches are separate from the VIA 4-in-1s as well.
I class the Chipset Inf Drivers as those which specifically address Intel Chipset issues, although I have not seen anything real addressed since about version 2.30.
I class the Chipset Inf Drivers as those which specifically address Intel Chipset issues, although I have not seen anything real addressed since about version 2.30.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
<< Do I have to uninstall the previous version of IAA before I can install this one? >>
Depends on your O/S. According to MS, Win XP does not require you to uninstall the previous drivers, thus, the driver rollback feature.........
I personally always felt uninstalling the previous version was safer, but tried it a while back on some drivers with both Intel systems and AMD............to date since I first tried this, I've not had any problems whatsoever...........(knock on wood)
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,087
- 18,583
- 146
What's up with this in the installation notes:
<< *You must install the Intel® Chipset Software Installation Utility prior to installing the Intel® Application Accelerator so that the Intel chipset is properly recognized by the operating system. Note: The Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility is not required on systems using Windows* NT* 4.0. >>
I go to the page for this, and look at the installation instructions for this and it tells me:
<< 7. It is recommended that the Intel(R) Chipset Software
Installation utility be installed onto the target system
prior to the installation of other drivers. >>
WTF? XP loads drivers for most of my stuff when it installs. And besides, I don't feel like reformatting.
How important is this?
<< *You must install the Intel® Chipset Software Installation Utility prior to installing the Intel® Application Accelerator so that the Intel chipset is properly recognized by the operating system. Note: The Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility is not required on systems using Windows* NT* 4.0. >>
I go to the page for this, and look at the installation instructions for this and it tells me:
<< 7. It is recommended that the Intel(R) Chipset Software
Installation utility be installed onto the target system
prior to the installation of other drivers. >>
WTF? XP loads drivers for most of my stuff when it installs. And besides, I don't feel like reformatting.
How important is this?
<< I don't feel like reformatting. >>
No reformat is needed. If you have XP, you already have the chipset drivers, Win2K doesn't. Just install the IAA in your case.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
You must install the Intel® Chipset Software Installation Utility prior to installing the Intel® Application Accelerator
From what I can tell, this is the same thing as the latest IMF files for your chipset. They have the same file name, something like INFINST_ENU.zip. I installed this right after installing Win2K. I think WinXP has them included.
My installation of IAA2 went ok without that utility. The only thing that caused problems was NAV2002, which was disabled for the uninstallation of the prior version and the installation of the newer one. I had to do a cold start (instead of just rebooting) to get everything to work right. I also couldn't download IAA2 from Intel's site. I had to use my FTP software to access Intel's FTP server and download it from there.
From what I can tell, this is the same thing as the latest IMF files for your chipset. They have the same file name, something like INFINST_ENU.zip. I installed this right after installing Win2K. I think WinXP has them included.
My installation of IAA2 went ok without that utility. The only thing that caused problems was NAV2002, which was disabled for the uninstallation of the prior version and the installation of the newer one. I had to do a cold start (instead of just rebooting) to get everything to work right. I also couldn't download IAA2 from Intel's site. I had to use my FTP software to access Intel's FTP server and download it from there.
Yes, the chipset SW is the inf file. XP already has it, but if you installed it again, it wouldn't hurt anything.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter