Via chipsets & 2k hiding drives in Bios

[videobruce 0]

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.

[Brian Frank 0]

Have you downloaded X-Setup? I remember their being an option in there to hide drives.

[Brian Frank 0]

Also, under Run, type in gpedit.msc and you'll have access to a lot of different goodies to play with.

[videobruce 0]

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!

[Four and Twenty 0]

one more reason why via sucks.

[videobruce 0]

Wrong..............it's M$ that sucks!

 

Stop supporting a monoploy!

[Four and Twenty 0]

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.

[clutch 1]

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.

[videobruce 0]

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!

[clutch 1]

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.

[CyberGenX 0]

One of my machines is an older BX board w/intel chip and you cannot hide drives with it either. There is no VIA chip anywhere on the board. So blame it on HUMANS PERIOD!

[clutch 1]

Those damned dirty humans!

[Brian Frank 0]

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.

[videobruce 0]

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........

[Brian Frank 0]

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.

[clutch 1]

I would simply shut down the PC and remove the drive in question, and switch it out with another. I would have 3 or 4 harddrives like this, and I could just shut down the system and switch out the drive, then boot up again and let the BIOS detect whatever drive I put in the receiver.

[Brian Frank 0]

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.

[videobruce 0]

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.

[Brian Frank 0]

Excuse my ignorance, but since when have you been able to hide drives from within BIOS?

[Xiven 0]

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.

[videobruce 0]

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!

[Xiven 0]

Well if you say so

 

My BX6 (Intel) in Win98 did it the same

[videobruce 0]

Then why is there a option to hide a drive if the O/S can see it anyway?

Again I have always been able to hide drives with 98SE and ME!

Are you talking about NT and 2k?

[clutch 1]

I have seen what Videobruce is saying, but then again Xiven is correct; DOS (which all the 9x OSs ran on until ME, and that had its own issues) asked the BIOS for its info whereas NT based OSs didn't. Are there flukes or mitigating circumstances that might have an NT OS not read a drive that's disabled in the BIOS? Probably, but overall it's been the way that Xiven (and I) mentioned. Now if you had an outboard controller, it *might* let you do what you are looking for depending on how it's setup.

 

So, what exactly are you trying to do? You just want to keep the spare in there and do periodic backups of your image? Can't you just use a removable chassis for your backup drive and do it that way? Then, you just shut down the PC and take out the drive when it's not needed, and put it back in and image it when you want to back up the master.

[videobruce 0]

Interesting on the NT/2k not asking the bios on what drives are hidden or not. I did not know that and another surprise with 2k. (I love surprises........)

 

To answer your question just what I am doing, all alone I have had 2 bootable drives both partitioned. The 2nd drive was a backup (active partition) in case my main drive's active partition went down (virus, corupt system file etc.) I have a DPDT toggle switch connected to both drives through a cut down ATA cable connector (only 6 holes used for the master/slave jumper positions). Both drives are visable since the 2nd partition has backup data on them, which is the way I want it. No drive swaping or removing.

I really don't want to have a dual booting single drive since you are dealing with one physical drive. I like the separate drive setup. It makes it easy to fix things since you can access system files without using DOS which I admit I'm not good at.

I hope that all makes sense.

I hope I don't have to go without the 2nd bootable drive idea just because of running 2k. 2k has been very bullit proof for me.