XP 64-bit installer not recognising SSD!

[Topweasel]

Those are the chipset drivers, not the storage drivers.

Surely he would want the F6 version of either Rapid Storage Technology or Intel Matrix Storage Manager?

Edit: Isn't this what he wants?

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det...duct=Intel®+Rapid+Storage+Technology&lang=eng

Not nessisarily. If he is running in ACHI then he just needs the controller to be recognized. The chipset drivers should be enough for that. If he was running Intel RSST (on my dells its one of the three modes) or Raid, yes. Or if he needed a drive to load onto a floppy. Also yes. But I am pretty sure that will work. He could also slipstream the latest SP, that might be enough.

Then again I could be wrong. I know you want to integrate the drivers, but now that I think of it, by the way that the boot proccess works he might need those drivers. Again, I think if you work off of the latest SP loaded it would even probably work then.

 

[taltamir]

Those are the chipset drivers, not the storage drivers.

Surely he would want the F6 version of either Rapid Storage Technology or Intel Matrix Storage Manager?

Edit: Isn't this what he wants?

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det...duct=Intel®+Rapid+Storage+Technology&lang=eng

You are correct.
Also, since he has a laptop he should check what drivers they offer (to make sure they are using the intel SATA controller; if they are then he should use the latest version from intel, probably. Laptops are weird with drivers)

 

[VirtualLarry]

XP only supports floppy and only native FDD one not a USB external floppy.
IIRC vista was the first MS OS to allow USB stick for loading drivers prior to install.

No, XP does support USB FDD, but only *certain* chipsets / USB IDs. Apparently, the USB VID/SVIDs are hardcoded into the text-mode setup routines. So if you have a supported USB floppy drive, then it will work.

I've done this personally, to get a laptop working that wasn't otherwise supported out-of-the-box with XP drivers.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/916196

 

[postmortemIA]

I respectfully disagree.

I've used both Vista Home Premium, and Win 7 Ultimate;
and I can guarantee you that, on the exact same hardware, XP 64-bit is a whole lot faster than either of those.

Plus I've yet to run into any compatibility issues with any of the CAD apps I use in XP 64
(I could never really get CATIA v6 to stop crashing in the middle of doing large assemblies under Win 7...added to the fact that said crashes would ALWAYS end up corrupting each and every part files in the assembly!).

As a matter of fact, I had no idea that there existed any 64-bit versions of pre-Vista Windows until I started searching for an alternative to Win 7. A friend lent me her copy of XP 64 (I guess it was a slipstreamed version, as I had no trouble installing from that. Plus, it had SP2 in it), and I've been in love with it since.

sure it is fast, XP is fast on modern hardware. I did run all three in 64-bit mode, Vista, 7 and XP. My workstation is on XP 64-bit. XP is fastest as it has least amount of bloat (read features). But it also has most of issues out of these 3.
Compatibility might be good for you, but not for me. We all use different programs, so it possible that you got max out of it.
Even Microsoft does not support it very well. Office 2010 does not work on it
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...ice-2010-system-requirements-HA101810407.aspx
Operating system
Windows XP (must have SP3) (32-bit)
Now, drivers are scarce for it was well.
One of things that works very poorly is control panel apps and some installers.

 

[taltamir]

sure it is fast, XP is fast on modern hardware. I did run all three in 64-bit mode, Vista, 7 and XP. My workstation is on XP 64-bit. XP is fastest as it has least amount of bloat (read features). But it also has most of issues out of these 3.

This is just plain wrong.
Features do not make an OS slow. XP consumes the least amount of ram and the least amount of HDD space but it is not faster. It might install faster (less to install).
But it is in fact slower then win7 in almost every benchmark.

 

[Coup27]

It might install faster (less to install).

I don't even think it installs faster. I think it takes twice as long to install as Windows 7.

 

[taltamir]

I don't even think it installs faster. I think it takes twice as long to install as Windows 7.

Well, I did say might.
Sure it has less to install, but it is reading it off of a CD (slower media) and it uses a less optimized engine. I doubt it has a multithreaded extraction tool for example so it probably only uses 1 core.

I am sure its slower in almost every conceivable benchmark.

 

[w00tman]

Well, I did say might.
Sure it has less to install, but it is reading it off of a CD (slower media) and it uses a less optimized engine. I doubt it has a multithreaded extraction tool for example so it probably only uses 1 core.

I am sure its slower in almost every conceivable benchmark.

I think I'd value my personal experience over some benchmarks on the internet, thank you.

At any rate, thanks everyone for all your help. Got XP 64 working just fine. No worthwhile driver issues, and all the apps I use (NX, CATIA, Alias Suite, SketchBook Designer, etc.) are working perfectly.

 

[nenforcer]

You said your BIOS had no option for choosing the SATA controller emulation mode, whether it be IDE/Legacy, AHCI or RAID.

RAID is the recommended option by Intel since it enables all of the AHCI features in addition to the RAID support.

Was there any option for even enabling RAID in your BIOS?

 

[w00tman]

You said your BIOS had no option for choosing the SATA controller emulation mode, whether it be IDE/Legacy, AHCI or RAID.

RAID is the recommended option by Intel since it enables all of the AHCI features in addition to the RAID support.

Was there any option for even enabling RAID in your BIOS?

None.

I tried to look for any advanced options for tweaking these kinda settings...nada.

I'm just happy everything's working alright now. Had a slight problem with the screen resolution settings on my Cintiq, plus some driver issues with some of the not-so-important peripherals (Bluetooth, webcam, etc.); but it's all fixed now.

 

[taltamir]

I think I'd value my personal experience over some benchmarks on the internet, thank you.

1. Your personal experience are emotion based "feel like" rather then benchmarks you performed.
2. Its not just "on the internet" its every professional reviewer. Anandtech, X-bit, and the like.
3. Good for you, you have the right to believe in fantasy over reality.

 

[postmortemIA]

1. Your personal experience are emotion based "feel like" rather then benchmarks you performed.
2. Its not just "on the internet" its every professional reviewer. Anandtech, X-bit, and the like.
3. Good for you, you have the right to believe in fantasy over reality.

Benchmark " Photoshop took 11.4 seconds on os x and 13.9 seconds on os y to apply effect z" or benchmark "oš has booted up with internet explorer loaded in 34 seconds"? I find #2 much more useful, and it contributes on which oš feels faster subjectively.

 

[Despoiler]

XP 64bit has no native TRIM support. Why would you use an SSD with it?

 

[anikhtos]

yes.... with windows 7.
With windows XP your choices are slipstream or loading them using a floppy disk (using an integrated FDD controller, will not work with an external USB floppy)

Also you will not have TRIM, your alignment will be incorrect unless you manually align elsewhere (say, using windows 7 installer or some linux tools) and you will need to manually configure your OS for an SSD (ex: exclude SSD from defrag)

what?!?!?
usb flopy works to give driver for windows xp x64 i have tried that
you have to have the floppy there with the disk
and then open the power lol do not ask me why
others compinations failed to work for me

 

[Topweasel]

XP 64bit has no native TRIM support. Why would you use an SSD with it?

TRIM is far from needed, its a bonus and on a good drive not even much of one. TRIM makes bad drives look good, that is it.

 

[w00tman]

3. Good for you, you have the right to believe in fantasy over reality.

Uh-huh.

And what exactly is this 'reality' you speak of?

Something you read off 'benchmarks' on the internet/magazines/'professional reviews'?

If it wasn't clear enough already, then let me explain it to you:

on the EXACT same computer,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

And on that EXACT same machine,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win XP 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

Notwithstanding CATIA's incompatibility
(which I doubt any of your benchmarking buddies/'professional reviewers' took note of,
given the fact that it's a $12000+ piece of CAD wonder),
I noticed XP 64-bit to be MUCH faster overall...across the entire range of the apps I use.

Period

However, I understand why you feel the need to flash around your 'e-peen' and attempt to be an 'e-boss' on an internet forum.

My observations lead me to believe that people who feel the need to win on the internet
(whether it be using their 'benchmarks', or otherwise)
have little (if any) understanding of what normal people call 'reality'.

So yea...keep your benchmarks to yourself, buddy.

 

[heymrdj]

Uh-huh.

And what exactly is this 'reality' you speak of?

Something you read off 'benchmarks' on the internet/magazines/'professional reviews'?

If it wasn't clear enough already, then let me explain it to you:

on the EXACT same computer,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

And on that EXACT same machine,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win XP 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

Notwithstanding CATIA's incompatibility
(which I doubt any of your benchmarking buddies/'professional reviewers' took note of,
given the fact that it's a $12000+ piece of CAD wonder),
I noticed XP 64-bit to be MUCH faster overall...across the entire range of the apps I use.

Period

However, I understand why you feel the need to flash around your 'e-peen' and attempt to be an 'e-boss' on an internet forum.

My observations lead me to believe that people who feel the need to win on the internet
(whether it be using their 'benchmarks', or otherwise)
have little (if any) understanding of what normal people call 'reality'.

So yea...keep your benchmarks to yourself, buddy.

You should learn to be more tactful, you're getting good advice here, buddy.

Your seat of your pants so called "benchmarking" is flat out wrong and spreading mis-information, please stop parenting it. Windows 7 is indeed faster in benchmarks on your software (Catia V6). You should be able to find this information since you're so keen on a software that decided to run a single version from 1998.

The parity you feel on the software isn't an OS problem, its your crappy consumer class system. Windows 7 moved the responsibility of OPENGL to the driver's responsibility, and CATIA V6 expects FireGL or Quadro. Windows XP works fast because it forces it all through the process via "emulation" for the lack of a better word. If you ran a proper rig for this important software you would find Windows 7 much faster as it used Quadro or FireGL. You can find out more about this from CATIA themselves.

You can tout the price of your software all you want, like much of the 3ds line it suffers from poor leading edge development and lingers too long on the decrepet. Instead of pushing V6, they pimped V5 through 21 revisions using code from the original 98 release, it's no onder it wouldn't properly support Vista and 7.

I'm sorry you didn't get the advice you wanted to hear right away. XP and SSD's is *not* an optimized use, and few people will recommend a lackluster way about going at things. Apparently your only supposed choice is the lackluster way which you've figured out. To support newer technology though I highly recommend you look to moving to software that actually supports the curve, with hardware that supports your job, with an OS from a current decade.

 

[fastman]

Uh-huh.

And what exactly is this 'reality' you speak of?

Something you read off 'benchmarks' on the internet/magazines/'professional reviews'?

If it wasn't clear enough already, then let me explain it to you:

on the EXACT same computer,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

And on that EXACT same machine,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win XP 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

Notwithstanding CATIA's incompatibility
(which I doubt any of your benchmarking buddies/'professional reviewers' took note of,
given the fact that it's a $12000+ piece of CAD wonder),
I noticed XP 64-bit to be MUCH faster overall...across the entire range of the apps I use.

Period

However, I understand why you feel the need to flash around your 'e-peen' and attempt to be an 'e-boss' on an internet forum.

My observations lead me to believe that people who feel the need to win on the internet
(whether it be using their 'benchmarks', or otherwise)
have little (if any) understanding of what normal people call 'reality'.

So yea...keep your benchmarks to yourself, buddy.

feredim-924...is that you again?
Remember your manners now!!!

 

[Topweasel]

Uh-huh.

And what exactly is this 'reality' you speak of?

Something you read off 'benchmarks' on the internet/magazines/'professional reviews'?

If it wasn't clear enough already, then let me explain it to you:

on the EXACT same computer,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

And on that EXACT same machine,
with the EXACT same specs,
I installed Win XP 64-bit,
along with all the different CAD apps (totalling to 9) I have to use.

Notwithstanding CATIA's incompatibility
(which I doubt any of your benchmarking buddies/'professional reviewers' took note of,
given the fact that it's a $12000+ piece of CAD wonder),
I noticed XP 64-bit to be MUCH faster overall...across the entire range of the apps I use.

Period

However, I understand why you feel the need to flash around your 'e-peen' and attempt to be an 'e-boss' on an internet forum.

My observations lead me to believe that people who feel the need to win on the internet
(whether it be using their 'benchmarks', or otherwise)
have little (if any) understanding of what normal people call 'reality'.

So yea...keep your benchmarks to yourself, buddy.

Dude I support your quest to continue to use Windows XP 64. I loved it and there are a few things that make it really nice including the small HD and RAM footprint. But everyone here is right. It's one thing working on a platform that doesn't work within Vista or Win7, but its another thing to espouse the superiority of XP in performance, if an app doesn't run, then it doesn't run. But Win 7 is quicker in about every way. Even if it wasn't trying to keep up on hardware on a practically unsupported even when new 7 year old OS is a fools errand. Heck if you really cared about how small a foot print and in theory quicker it would perform, maybe you should look into Win2000 Win 98SE or Win95 OSR2. Also be prepared for the eventual time that your video drivers crash while doing CAD work in XP, and you BSOD. Something where Win 7 can just reload the driver. It would be nice not lose all the work you did prior to the last save.

So you can say right now that you understand the benefits of Win 7, but it isn't practical, or right now you aren't in position to change platforms that you have been developing in for years and ask "so please help me install this hard drive" or any other piece if you need help in the future into WinXP 64. People are willing to help you, but they also want to make sure they cover their bases and make sure you have all the information available, and that includes understanding the limitations of your OS and the performance and stability offered in the current one. When you lose your tack and start espousing false facts based on "feel" as apposed to actual benchmark performances and attack the people trying to help you understand, it is only going to get worse, because no knowledgeable tech is going to want false truths to hang out there, not just for you, but for every person who might find this thread on google and might buy into your gospel.

You are wrong now own up to it, don't worry if even after the fact, you continue to want to run with WinXP 64, people familiar with the platform will help you.

 

[Despoiler]

TRIM is far from needed, its a bonus and on a good drive not even much of one. TRIM makes bad drives look good, that is it.

I don't think you know what TRIM means.

 

[taltamir]

I don't think you know what TRIM means.

Pretty much.
And this one actually has a pretty decent wikipedia writeup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM

 

[Shmee]

Lets keep the squabbling to a minimum please

 

[Topweasel]

I don't think you know what TRIM means.

Trim is a command that marks recently deleted sectors as ready to be written to. Something the garbage collector would do when it had time. So it saves the Garbage collector some work and it has a list of sectors to clean up. Therefore Good Garbage collector means the impact of having Trim isn't as great. Like I said Trim is an equalizer more then anything else.

TRIM enables the SSD to handle garbage collection overhead, that would otherwise significantly slow down future write operations to the involved blocks, in advance.

 

[taltamir]

Trim is a command that marks recently deleted sectors as ready to be written to. Something the garbage collector would do when it had time. So it saves the Garbage collector some work and it has a list of sectors to clean up. Therefore Good Garbage collector means the impact of having Trim isn't as great. Like I said Trim is an equalizer more then anything else.

If TRIM was as unimportant as you say we never would have gotten it so quickly. TRIM is absolutely ESSENTIAL for SSDs and this has been the cause of its rapid creation and adoption.

1. TRIM does not do that. (widely known) TRIM marks (on moment of deletion) sectors as "deleted garbage not to be preserved" not as "ready to be written to" Those are completely different things.
This means that when the GC engine recycles those pages (128 sector group that gets deleted together) it need not preserve that garbage data.

Your GC confusion is understandable (GC is very misunderstood and misdocumented, there are threads where it is being discussed here on the forums)... but TRIM has been well known for a while.
Extra info:

2. (widely known) GC ensures there is enough space to be writen to by recycling the least used blocks, without TRIM that means this recycling is causing a high write amplification (~10x+) as garbage data is maintained and can actually result in running out of writes (writes are non issue only if you have TRIM). Having TRIM nullifies this write amplification entirely on these drives.

3. (not widely known) Supposedly only a few drives (ex: samsung 830) have FS specific algorithms to scan the FS MFT for unused sectors (deleted files) to mark their sectors as garbage (as if they were trimmed). Manufacturers are mostly tight lipped on this issue. We are currently trying to figure out who does this on other threads in this forum. (we only found proof samsung did that a few days ago)

4. (widely known) It has been empirically proven by sites like anandtech that TRIM allows drives to maintain their "like new" performance indefinitely. While GC:
a. Takes time to improve performance even on the best GC drives on the market.
b. Never reaches the same speed as a TRIMed drive.

5. (widely known) The vast majority of drives have poor GC.

6. (not widely known) Very aggressive GC (the "best GC") might have negative effects on write amplification and is thus undersirable.

 

[Topweasel]

If TRIM was as unimportant as you say we never would have gotten it so quickly. TRIM is absolutely ESSENTIAL for SSDs and this has been the cause of its rapid creation and adoption.

1. TRIM does not do that. (widely known) TRIM marks (on moment of deletion) sectors as "deleted garbage not to be preserved" not as "ready to be written to" Those are completely different things.
This means that when the GC engine recycles those pages (128 sector group that gets deleted together) it need not preserve that garbage data.

Your GC confusion is understandable (GC is very misunderstood and misdocumented, there are threads where it is being discussed here on the forums)... but TRIM has been well known for a while.
Extra info:

2. (widely known) GC ensures there is enough space to be writen to by recycling the least used blocks, without TRIM that means this recycling is causing a high write amplification (~10x+) as garbage data is maintained and can actually result in running out of writes (writes are non issue only if you have TRIM). Having TRIM nullifies this write amplification entirely on these drives.

3. (not widely known) Supposedly only a few drives (ex: samsung 830) have FS specific algorithms to scan the FS MFT for unused sectors (deleted files) to mark their sectors as garbage (as if they were trimmed). Manufacturers are mostly tight lipped on this issue. We are currently trying to figure out who does this on other threads in this forum. (we only found proof samsung did that a few days ago)

4. (widely known) It has been empirically proven by sites like anandtech that TRIM allows drives to maintain their "like new" performance indefinitely. While GC:
a. Takes time to improve performance even on the best GC drives on the market.
b. Never reaches the same speed as a TRIMed drive.

5. (widely known) The vast majority of drives have poor GC.

6. (not widely known) Very aggressive GC (the "best GC") might have negative effects on write amplification and is thus undersirable.

I gather that. But again obviously 100% performance isn't needed or he wouldn't be installing Win XP 64. My point was that Trim not saying it isn't awesome, just it isn't the end all be all of technologies that no machine can live without. A SSD spending most of it's life at 85-90% is still better then a HDD running at 100%. I get what you are saying about the GC being crap on most consumer drives, I have notated either in this thread or others that you want to get a drive with a known good GC and probably target the ones used in enterprise set ups where RAID/no Trim is expected.

The Amplification I haven't delved to much into, but even then I am not sure that is as big a problem as one would need to worry about. There is already proof that the NAND chips and wear leveling have made the drives last way longer then expected.

The big point is that TRIM does good work, but with a good drive, lessens the need for TRIM and would allow it to work well inside a machine without it, in which there are many. For a lot of people, putting on Win 7 also nearly doubles the cost of the upgrade.