[xper]

This guide is intended to provide instruction on how to create a Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 install CD with slipstreamed SATA/RAID drivers. By the completion of this guide, at a minimum the reader should be able to perform a Windows XP Professional install that does not require third party SATA/RAID drivers added via a floppy drive.

This document is considered public information and may be only added to or used as reference in free or non-profit publications.

Those wishing to use this guide as reference material must contact Michael Hollinger at mike97305 at hotmail.com.

Thanks to Michael Hollinger

Attached File(s)

•  Creating_a_Microsoft_Windows_XP_SP2_CD_with_Slipstreamed_SATA_and_or_RAID_Drivers.doc (70.5K)
  Number of downloads: 5668

[my2001]

Cool! Thank you very much, I guess I've been unconsciously waiting for it!

[glent]

thanks for this

[Alanoll]

my2001, on Nov 12 2004, 06:24 AM, said:

Cool! Thank you very much, I guess I've been unconsciously waiting for it!

don't know why you were waiting.....

almost all the information came from MSFN. Just check the references.
Most is a rewrite of http://greenmachine....ING/addraid.htm , but presented in POSSIBLY an easier to read manner for people not used to editing files.

Looks like I got another page to bookmark incase someone doesn't search....

[RyanVM]

You might want to convert it to PDF for those who can't open Word documents.

EDIT: I went ahead and converted it. It's also 30K smaller as PDF.

Attached File(s)

•  Creating_a_Microsoft_Windows_XP_SP2_CD_with_Slipstreamed_SATA_and_or_RAID_Drivers.pdf (45.6K)
  Number of downloads: 2066

[my2001]

Alanoll, on Nov 12 2004, 06:21 PM, said:

don't know why you were waiting.....

Oh, just believe me, I indeed have my reasons.

[hitcher]

yes very cool

[neophyte]

Oh my! How lovely.


Very nice xper Very nice indeed.

[muslim]

Oh my! How lovely.


Very nice xper Very nice indeed.

[^_^]

just seems there should be an easier way

Good reason to stay with parallel ATA in my opinion
that, and I haven't seen real speed benefits that outweight the risks involved with raid
#1 while it's fine for people who back up their data, most homeowners wait until it's too late, and it's **** hard to retrieve data on a raid setup where a drive physically fails
#2 the extra bootup time for the raid systems is annoying, not to mention it takes system resourses for the most common raid systems. Now the real scsi cards are better than the promise controllers in this respect

[RyanVM]

^_^, on Nov 18 2004, 07:19 AM, said:

just seems there should be an easier way

Good reason to stay with parallel ATA in my opinion
that, and I haven't seen real speed benefits that outweight the risks involved with raid

It's not the manufacturer's fault that MS hasn't updated their OS in awhile. WindowsXP came out long before any of this stuff even existed.

Quote

#1 while it's fine for people who back up their data, most homeowners wait until it's too late, and it's **** hard  to retrieve data on a raid setup where a drive physically fails

There's more to RAID than RAID 0

Quote

#2 the extra bootup time for the raid systems is annoying, not to mention it takes system resourses for the most common raid systems. Now the real scsi cards are better than the promise controllers in this respect

As someone who's had motherboards with integrated RAID for over 3 years, I think you're blowing the issue grealy out of proportion.

[DisabledTrucker]

^_^, on Nov 18 2004, 08:19 AM, said:

just seems there should be an easier way

Good reason to stay with parallel ATA in my opinion
that, and I haven't seen real speed benefits that outweight the risks involved with raid

You have obviously never run with SATA in Raid-1 or better yet Raid-5.

Quote

#1 while it's fine for people who back up their data, most homeowners wait until it's too late, and it's **** hard  to retrieve data on a raid setup where a drive physically fails

You obviously have no idea what your talking about. Most homeowners don't even run a Raid to begin with.

Quote

#2 the extra bootup time for the raid systems is annoying, not to mention it takes system resourses for the most common raid systems. Now the real scsi cards are better than the promise controllers in this respect

Your blowing smoke, having had a raid set up now for the last 3+ years, I haven't ever seen a slowdown during bootup due to the inclusion of the raid setup, if anything it has been faster. Not to mention I don't have to worry about losing my data since I run a Raid-1 set up. Furthermore, I have seen noticable access speed increases since switching to 7200 rpm SATA using Raid-0 and Raid-1 over my 3 yr old WD 7200 rpm PATA drives in the same exact situations in the same exact set-up, though they are minimal, there are increases. It all depends on what your using your computer for. For gaming purposes, there really isn't any need for running a raid setup, for doing such things as running a PVR or websites Raid makes a big difference. I currently use a Chaintech 7NJS-Ultra with on-board PATA/SATA raid controller built in as well as a Asus A7N-266/VM with a Promise PCI controller for my PATA drives, FWIW.

There are so many benefits of using a SATA drive, that I have often wondered why it has taken them so long to finally go this route, as the knowledge of the speed increases have been known for many years. The problem does lie with the motherboard manufacturers as they didn't anticipate for SATA to take off like it has thus they mostly added the functionality of SATA through Raid controllers, instead of making them native devices such as the PATA drives are. There are a couple of manufacturers which did choose to put the SATA drives as native devices on their motherboards, and as time goes on, you will eventually see PATA totally phased out of the motherboards as all the drives eventually switch over to SATA.

I for one, next year when I upgrade for the 10th time in as many years, fully intend on purchasing a motherboard with native SATA controllers where I woulnd't need the Raid setup, though I will have some of my SATA drives in a Raid setup, as I do now, for backups as well as PVR duties.

As far as the average homeowner goes, the average homeowner only barely know how to turn on their computers and read emails from their AOL accounts and thus wouldn't be in need of this information to begin with, as their idea of upgrading their computer is going to the local Wal-Mart or Comp-USA or the like and picking up their new $500 HP/Compaq, after their 5 year old $1500 Pentium finally craps out or can't handle the upgrade to AOL's newest version.

[^_^]

OK, let me clarify
I HAVE sold systems to people on the premise that raid is faster. Sorry, I was disappointed in the performance, not worth the money

As far as the boot performance, I was talking about the 3 seconds it takes to load the raid setup on cold boot, as it seems to take this time to initialize the raid setup no matter what brand it is.

So, guess it's all a matter of preference. So I like redheads

and I use the Maxtor ATA133 so yeah, it's gonna beat the WD because those are only ATA100

guess I'm an old fogy

[battleangel3222]

Must be, because I dont know what crack your smoking to think Maxtor is the only manufacturer to present ATA133 (or even the first)

[^_^]

well, I don't use samsung for hard drives

[maxXPsoft]

Thats cool xper
trying to compare to my methods

Quote

where a drive physically fails

Sorry I just think thats funny. I have never and I mean ever had a drive fail, is it the manufacturer and or type or this bogus crud they trying to sell or promote? My first drive I ever personally had is still in use and has been formatted probably over 200 times including low level, its a Seagate. shhhh don't tell my inlaws
Only drives I ever had problems with were Maxtor btw

[RyanVM]

maxXPsoft, on Nov 19 2004, 09:17 PM, said:

Quote

where a drive physically fails

Sorry I just think thats funny. I have never and I mean ever had a drive fail, is it the manufacturer and or type or this bogus crud they trying to sell or promote? My first drive I ever personally had is still in use and has been formatted probably over 200 times including low level, its a Seagate. shhhh don't tell my inlaws
Only drives I ever had problems with were Maxtor btw

Consider yourself lucky. I've personally had 4 drives die on me, all within the last 5 years or so.

[sandman112]

ok, great, just done all that is mentioned in the word doc, went to burn it and its bigger than a CD, the files to be burned are about 815MB in total

can you tell me where ive gone wrong on this, and please try and keep it simple for me, im new to all this slipstreaming stuff


thanks

[Mekrel]

@ Sandman, you have probably included some files, which are not needed - but we cant see which ones, so create a seperate thread - more people will see it that way and also describe fully what is in your drivers folder.

To Xper , just to say a quick thankyou on the guide, I found it so easy to follow - and thought you deserved alot of praise as you have put in alot of effort to make the guide. which is also like I said, very clear and easy to follow.

So thanks mate

[buletov]

^_^, on Nov 19 2004, 12:55 AM, said:

and I use the Maxtor ATA133 so yeah, it's gonna beat the WD because those are only ATA100

bullcrap...

maximur real read/write speed on those disks is around 20-25MB/s

so the difference between ata100 and ata133 is obsolete.

plus the maxtor drivers have the highest rate of suddenly crapping out on you.