Vista - Should I take the plunge? [Archive] - Page 2

JohnnyMalaria

30th June 2008, 13:30

Just so long as you don't anticipate using 3GB+ of system memory........

On my 3rd board now and iv'e basically given up trying to get my system stable with 4GB. This is absolutely absurd when one of the boasts of Vista above XP is being able to handle 3GB+ of memory. :devil::devil::devil:

Vista and XP are no different in this respect. Only the 64-bit versions of both can correctly handle 3GB+.

dat720

30th June 2008, 21:01

Vista 32bit may not support more than 3.2gb ram, but using over 3.2 certainly does not make it unstable, i've built many systems (at customers request) with 4gb, and at my new job all our new systems from dell (yeah yeah i know tell the Australian government) have 4gb and perform flawlessly (except for the spastics that try their best to break them) once i chock this puppy up with 2 more gb and a QX6600 or something i'll move to vista 64bit.

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 07:27

dat720

1st July 2008, 11:46

From memory the last 4gb machine i built was a Intel board with 4x1gb 800mhz DDR2 Rambo brand i think, Q6600 Stock Clock with a 8800GTX and a 550w PSU, we ran it through 10 loops of 3D Mark 03 aswell as a overnight run of prime95 and it was fine, the customer had it for 3 months before i left that shop and he was a regular and always said it was running fine, infact we never had any complaints or issues with any of the 4gb machines we built.

burfadel

1st July 2008, 12:21

Thats really weird, all computers know of that has x64 and 4gb installed run fine! Actually one had 8gb of ram, just for fun (pulled another 4gb out of a system just to try it out). The only issue with Vista, regardless of whether its the x86 and x64 version relating to any installation is the initial installation. If you have multiple drives connected, the RTM Vista may not want to install on the main drive. Temporarily disconnecting some of the other drives will resolve this. I should point out that when I mean RTM Vista, I mean Vista plus any streamlined versions!!! The sp1 does NOT update the installation system for Vista, the only way to get a fully updated installation system is (for the normal person) pay the $15 for the shipment of the alternate media! Apparently even updating the Windows PE (installation) from PE 2.0 to 2.1 (sp1) still leaves some files not updated.

Its strange the problem experience above is with different motherboard manufacturers, I take it they're all recent chipsets? (such as the Intel p35/p45/x38/x48/Nforce 790i etc)? I wouldn't rely on a p965/p975 motherboard in terms of PCI remapping.

Yoshiyuki Blade

1st July 2008, 13:03

I'm using Vista x64. Maybe you are using a "magic" motherboard beacause I have tried 3 (ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock) and none will handle 4gb properly with all the latest drivers and Vista updates installed. The only way round this is to do all your software installs with 2gb, stabilise everything then power off, load the other 2gb, then let it cycle through about 4 or 5 reboots until it finally loads up then leave it in suspend mode all the time (ie - never power it off!) :devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

The brand is secondary in importance of stability compared to the chipset used. ASUS and Gigabyte make great stable boards, but any brand with a crappy chipset will make the whole board crappy :D.

Overall, I'm sorry to see that you're having trouble taking the plunge :(

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 15:48

I have stuck with the Asus M3N-HT DELUXE/HDMI NVIDIA nForce 780a SLI board. Usually I find NVIDIA chipsets to be pretty stable in my last 2 boards so I don't think thats the problem. I also rate NVIDIA's driver support to be far better than ATI, much more responsive to known issues etc. I am going to try 2 other brands of memory and then i'm basically going to give up if that does not work.

I have not got the time to waste installing and reinstalling boards and operating systems. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

burfadel

1st July 2008, 16:31

Have you tried the latest bios for that board? The latest bios version 0901 states (direct quote from the Asus website, although I did bold the interesting line!):
0901 BIOS
1.Fix the problem that CrashFree function is abnormal sometimes.
2.Fix the problem that it may takes 4 to 8 times of cold boot to enter OS with Phenom 9850 and 9950 CPUs.
3.Fix the problem that the chassis fan will suddenly stop.

Problem 2 could be a common problem with the chipset or CPU combination, which may make it common across different boards?...

DVD Maniac

1st July 2008, 21:05

Thanks for the idea but yes ive done that already. I am now resigned to stripping out 2mb whenever I need to reboot. :devil::devil::devil:

Blue_MiSfit

3rd July 2008, 01:06

dat720

4th July 2008, 08:25

Thanks for the idea but yes ive done that already. I am now resigned to stripping out 2mb whenever I need to reboot. :devil::devil::devil:

It seriously sound's like some conflicting devices, i would be looking at the ram, using something like memtest86 testing 1 stick at a time, then all stick's, i would also run prime95 overnight just to see if it is stable, if any of those test's fail then you problem is not with windows, try striping the system down to the bare essentials, only 1 hdd no optical drive, remove the video card (if it has onboard) and any other pci/pcie devices that aren't required for it to run.

What ever is happening is not normal and you should find out where the problem is.

We have a pc at work, (intel dual cpu board) with dual xeon 5150's and 8gb memory running vista as a test just to see how fast it is (FRIGGEN FAST!!) and it's rock solid.

DVD Maniac

4th July 2008, 12:24

Yeah... that really really sucks.

I'm sorry you're having such hideous, stupid problems.

The problem lies in your motherboard's integrated RAID controller or its Vista x64 drivers :(

I have 4GB of RAM on a p35 chipset Asus P5K-E, and it's flawless. No RAID, but lots and lots of hard drives ;) I had a Gigabyte DS4 for awhile, which was fantastic too (but a capacitor literally exploded on me ROFL).

All your drivers / BIOS updated? How exactly did you install Vista on the RAID - using the built in driver, or did you load one at setup time with a flash drive etc?

~MiSfit

Well yes I am using an adaptec u320 RAID board in mode 0. Other posts I read mentioned the problem occured with on M/BOARD RAID drivers, not external ones in native RAID mode.

I have been careful to download the latest native driver from adaptec and onto a floppy. I install this at the initial Windows load as an additional driver just like I did in XP. The Vista disc cannot "see" the array otherwise so I assume it doesn't have this driver on the setup disc. How would I do the load after OS install anyway?

I suppose I could try loading the OS onto a single SATA drive and see what happens, although I would not like to loose the use of my RAID board - especially since I can now run it in x64 mode for the first time. Is there a big difference in performance of a SATA drive (300mbps) vs a SCSI 320 on a x64 board?

burfadel

4th July 2008, 17:15

A very important note with SATA, something that most people overlook and are none the wiser:
By default, the bios sets up SATA for 'IDE compatibility mode'. This allows Windows XP to be installed correctly, however it does disable some advanced SATA features (such as NCQ). NCQ with recent drives isn't detrimental to everyday use like it once was. Setting AHCI in the bios also allows for full functionality of performance drivers for the Intel and Nvidia chipsets (drivers neet to be installed separately, and not use the standard .inf driver but the actual .sys driver).

Windows Vista can install fine with AHCI mode since it was designed from the start to be AHCI compliant, unlike XP which has been patched and modded significantly to cope with new hardare. The one WARNING is though, you cannot change freely between AHCI mode and IDE (either IDE enhanced or IDE compatibility mode, both aren't AHCI mode). If you installed in AHCI mode (best mode) and change to the slower IDE performance or IDE compatibility modes, it may still boot fine, but if you change from IDE to AHCI mode, apparently even Vista won't boot, regardless of whether booting in to safe more or not. So once set, leave it! I haven't tested this out myself but its good to heed common advice with this issue! I highly recommend AHCI mode.

Blue_MiSfit

4th July 2008, 19:59

kumi

7th July 2008, 04:51

Sorry to stray a bit off topic:

drivers neet to be installed separately, and not use the standard .inf driver but the actual .sys driver
Do you have any links with further information on this, specifically how to integrate the .sys driver into a Windows XP installation disc? I will be installing XP on a SATA-loaded system soon, and it has no floppy disc.
EDIT: I found instructions for nLite: http://komku.blogspot.com/2007/11/integrate-driver-into-windows.html

unlike XP which has been patched and modded significantly to cope with new hardware.
Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

dat720

7th July 2008, 12:32

Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

Yes it is, i have had system's where you could just plain not install xp with AHCI turned on.

Go Here (http://driverpacks.net/) there is heaps on info on integrating drivers...

Also check out the MSFN (http://www.msfn.org/board/forums.html) forums this would be a much better place to gain info on integrating drivers and slip streaming service packs and stuff, that's where i learned everything i know.

DVD Maniac

7th July 2008, 16:32

Yes. AHCI mode makes a difference, for sure.

As far as SATA vs SCSI - they both have plenty of bandwidth. It all depends on what kind of SCSI array we're talking about here.

One SCSI drive will surely have faster seek times than one SATA drive. Sustained transfer speeds etc will probably be higher as well (assuming 10,000 - 15,000 RPM screamers).

Maybe you should install Vista on a SATA drive, and have the SCSI drives as a secondary? Perhaps the problem lies in trying to boot from the SCSI drive.

Again - did you install Vista using the most recent driver for your SCSI card?

~MiSfit

Yes, all drivers are latest, especially the Adaptec Host drivers. Are you saying it makes a difference loading these up at Vista install stage (ie - straight to the RAID array) as opposed to loading the OS onto a single SATA, then loading the RAID driver and then transferring over to the RAID array via Ghost or similar? Thats just plain riduculous if it is!

As for using my RAID array as a simple "dummy" drive without my OS I just don't see the point - might as well throw away the card and drives!

The whole thing has got me mad now. :devil::devil::devil:

Inventive Software

7th July 2008, 16:44

This is what RAID does to ya! :D Much simpler IMO just to have a massive hard disk, and if you MUST use RAID, use JBOD and back up regularly!

Blue_MiSfit

7th July 2008, 19:25

Are you saying it makes a difference loading these up at Vista install stage (ie - straight to the RAID array) as opposed to loading the OS onto a single SATA, then loading the RAID driver and then transferring over to the RAID array via Ghost or similar? Thats just plain riduculous if it is!

Sort of...

What I'm saying is this:

Assuming you want to install to your SCSI RAID array, it does make a difference whether or not you load the (latest) driver at Vista install stage. It sounds like you're doing this but I want to be clear on this point.

RAID is tricky - especially if drivers aren't perfect. This is one area where Vista x64 has a few problems. It's constantly getting better, and all of my issues have been resolved. However, it sounds like some hardware doesn't play nice :(

Just as a test, try installing to a vanilla SATA drive.

Do you mean AHCI is problematic on Windows XP, or are you just speaking about hardware compatibility in general?

AHCI on XP usually works, provided three things happen:
1) The board is set to AHCI mode
2) You have working AHCI drivers either integrated into the CD or available as a floppy
3) Your XP installation CD is SP2 or greater

I have an integrated CD with SP3 and the Intel ICH9R RAID drivers, which has worked perfectly for me several times. But now I just use Vista x64 and it works out of the box ;) Then again, I'm not using a fancy schmancy SCSI controller with a RAID array. I just have a bunch of SATA drives..

~MiSfit

DVD Maniac

8th July 2008, 07:45

Sort of...

What I'm saying is this:

Assuming you want to install to your SCSI RAID array, it does make a difference whether or not you load the (latest) driver at Vista install stage. It sounds like you're doing this but I want to be clear on this point.

RAID is tricky - especially if drivers aren't perfect. This is one area where Vista x64 has a few problems. It's constantly getting better, and all of my issues have been resolved. However, it sounds like some hardware doesn't play nice :(

Just as a test, try installing to a vanilla SATA drive.

~MiSfit

Well my RAID card is the Adaptec 29320 A U320. Adaptec has 2 drivers for Vista x 64, one for HOST Raid enabled and one for it disabled (why the hell would anyone run a RAID board without the HOST Raid enabled anyway?).

Latest driver for an enabled Host is date stamped 5 Feb 07 which doesn't sound very "up to date" does it? Description is -

"Ultra320 64-bit HostRAID drivers for Windows Vista x64 Edition for the 29320(A) and 39320(A) series cards with HostRAID enabled."

I have copied these files to a floppy and tell Vista to load them during install. Then it finds the array and I do the usual create partition and format step before loading Vista. Everything appears to load just fine (even with 4GB installed) and it cycles 2 or 3 times during the install phase OK. Only when it restarts for the 1st time after a manual reboot do the problems start up. :confused::confused::confused:

dat720

8th July 2008, 12:44

Have you tried contacting the motherboard manufacturer?

DVD Maniac

8th July 2008, 16:07

Have you tried contacting the motherboard manufacturer?

......because I don't want to go insane waiting endlessly for stress inducing responses telling me to do stuff I have already told them I have done like -

update to the latest BIOS
installing the latest chipset drivers

then, on to the next in the script

Turning my computer on and off :mad:
and then onto the final "its not us" stretch statements thus

swearing blind that its probably something else I have attached like a mouse or a scanner etc etc etc etc

There isn't a Z in the month

I have the wrong type of electricty supply

and then having finally, once my annoyance levels boil over, having to release my stress on my keyboard / furniture / girlfriend / cat..........

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, flip flops and cap

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

Blue_MiSfit

8th July 2008, 18:43

It's all part of the troubleshooting process - you never know. They may be privy to information you don't have.

I had an issues when XP came out with my Athlon 1.2 GHz system. It had a KT-133A board from DFI. I couldn't install XP! Every time I started loading the CD, the damn system would freeze up. I tested every component, and nothing would make it work.

Finally, I contacted DFI, and they told me - oh yeah - there's a known issue with that specific video card you have (a GeForce 2 MX/400 64mb AGP 4x). So I swapped out video cards to install, and it worked fine. Swapped back and all was well. They later released a BIOS update that fixed the issue. I went through all the same hassle you did, but I got resolution.

I know, I hated it too, but it's all part of a process. They don't know if you have your head screwed on straight until they get the bases covered. :)

~MiSfit

Ajax_Undone

8th July 2008, 20:02

Use vlite integrate the textmode drivers needed install then configure... Easy if the Mother board has issues then contact the manufature tell them the steps you have already gone through and say that you want a REPLACEMENT if they cannot help any further.. Most mother boards have a 3 year manufacture warranty against flaws in design and workmanship.. Which case a MB that does not operate because of a chipset problem seems to fit in to that category... Had a month ago a problem with a set of intel boards that would not take there raid 0 setup and it used a promise raid controller they replaced every one of them... Had to pay for shipping but in comparison to a $250USD/pMB it was worth it...

dat720

9th July 2008, 00:33

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, flip flops and cap

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:

Yes they can be anoying sometimes, but it maybe the only solution for you!

If i was having this much trouble with a motherboard i would have returned it to the shop i bought it from by now! it is obviously a faulty product, it does not work as advertised, if it has a vista support logo on it then it's false advertising, the product does not work the way it was intended!!!

It sound's like your trying to beat a dead horse! do some research find a raid chipset that works with vista happily and go with that one!

DVD Maniac

9th July 2008, 07:58

Yes they can be anoying sometimes, but it maybe the only solution for you!

If i was having this much trouble with a motherboard i would have returned it to the shop i bought it from by now! it is obviously a faulty product, it does not work as advertised, if it has a vista support logo on it then it's false advertising, the product does not work the way it was intended!!!

It sound's like your trying to beat a dead horse! do some research find a raid chipset that works with vista happily and go with that one!

If only it was that simple! I'm on my 3rd board now so this is obviously a conflict with Vista+4GB+my Adaptec 29320 card. I have eliminated the memory by trying 3 other brands. I have yet to try an install on a single SATA drive but I reckon that will work just fine.

I could of course opt to use the onboard SATA Raid on my ASUS board but I don't think this will perform as well as my U320 SCSI array as this is on a true x64 bit controller. If anyone can tell me that an onboard SATA array will perform as well (or close to) a U320 SCSI array then i'll go that route.

In the meantime I've emailed Adaptec support. Normally they are pretty good and don't waste your time with rubbish suggestions. Abit/Gigabyte/ASUS and pretty much all Motherboard suppliers support is hopeless which is why i am not going to wate my time on that one.

dat720

9th July 2008, 12:50

Oh sorry, i must had misread your earlier post's i thought the issue was with the motherboard and it's onboard raid, not a seperate Raid controller.....

Looks like you are at the mercy of Adaptec then.

If anyone can tell me that an onboard SATA array will perform as well (or close to) a U320 SCSI array then i'll go that route.

It depends entirely on the disc's in use i guess.

PS looking around google shows that the problem is not limited to windows, linux is also affected, so it must be a issue with the raid card + 4gb, just a query but have you tested this card under XP 64bit with 4gb ram?

Yoshiyuki Blade

12th July 2008, 04:12

Hmmm... I don't have much experience in the HDD fields, but there are some misconceptions here and there about them. Things such as a RAID 0 array performing better, but in real-world performance you won't notice a difference.

Try using the onboard RAID controller and see if the performance loss (if you notice it in real-world applications) is worth more than the headaches you've been having these past few weeks :D. You have any SATA drives you can work with?