Vista and Raid 0

I am trying to install Vista on a RAID 0 but it won't go. While I was able to set up two identical drives in BIOS as RAID 0, the Vista Installation stops shortly after I press Install and waiting for some kind of drivers.

I was under the impression (because I read this in one of the computer publications) that, unlike Windows XP which required RAID drivers from a floppy upon installation,Vista did not. So the trouble is, if the proper drivers are not provided (Vista doesn't indicate which drivers), the installation goes nowhere. Any clues? Thanks.

Hi,

Vista supports some RAID systems, but not all. Apparently yours is the
latter, so you will need to download the appropriate driver files from the
motherboard manufacturer. In Vista, you can supply the files via floppy,
thumb drive, or CD.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:AC87F490-0EB1-490A-8F00-...
I am trying to install Vista on a RAID 0 but it won't go. While I was able
to set up two identical drives in BIOS as RAID 0, the Vista Installation
stops shortly after I press Install and waiting for some kind of drivers.

I was under the impression (because I read this in one of the computer
publications) that, unlike Windows XP which required RAID drivers from a
floppy upon installation,Vista did not. So the trouble is, if the proper
drivers are not provided (Vista doesn't indicate which drivers), the
installation goes nowhere. Any clues? Thanks.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:07:38 -0400, "nospam" <>
wrote:

> I am trying to install Vista on a RAID 0 but it won't go. While I was able to set up two identical drives in BIOS as RAID 0, the Vista Installation stops shortly after I press Install and waiting for some kind of drivers.
>
> I was under the impression (because I read this in one of the computer publications) that, unlike Windows XP which required RAID drivers from a floppy upon installation,Vista did not. So the trouble is, if the proper drivers are not provided (Vista doesn't indicate which drivers), the installation goes nowhere. Any clues? Thanks.


I'd like to recommend *against* RAID0, striping. Although RAID0 sounds
like it gives substantial speed improvement, in practice the actual
improvement is usually almost unnoticeable. And it has a severe
downside: if either drive fails, you lose everything on both drives.

I used to run RAID0 on this machine, and stopped using it several
months ago. I decided that the increased risk wasn't worth the very
small speed improvement. My experience since then has been what I
expected. I can't discern any difference in speed with or without the
RAID0.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I tried installing again after downloading the drivers. Even though Vista
found the drivers, which I put on a memory stick, the Vista installation
process never got out of the loop of looking for the drivers - even though
all the drivers seemed to install. I can't figure this out...



"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:u0aMVY$...
> Hi,
>
> Vista supports some RAID systems, but not all. Apparently yours is the
> latter, so you will need to download the appropriate driver files from the
> motherboard manufacturer. In Vista, you can supply the files via floppy,
> thumb drive, or CD.

Of course RAID 0 is a risky but no more than putting your data on one hard
drive and not backing it up. My original question was simple: why won't
Vista let me install it on a RAID 0 configuration? I had no problems
whatsoever with Windows XP if that's worth anything...


"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
>
> I'd like to recommend *against* RAID0, striping. Although RAID0 sounds
> like it gives substantial speed improvement, in practice the actual
> improvement is usually almost unnoticeable. And it has a severe
> downside: if either drive fails, you lose everything on both drives.
>
> I used to run RAID0 on this machine, and stopped using it several
> months ago. I decided that the increased risk wasn't worth the very
> small speed improvement. My experience since then has been what I
> expected. I can't discern any difference in speed with or without the
> RAID0.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Are they Vista-certified drivers?

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:83C372ED-DA94-4CFC-9D66-...
>I tried installing again after downloading the drivers. Even though Vista
>found the drivers, which I put on a memory stick, the Vista installation
>process never got out of the loop of looking for the drivers - even though
>all the drivers seemed to install. I can't figure this out...
>
>
>
> "Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
> news:u0aMVY$...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Vista supports some RAID systems, but not all. Apparently yours is the
>> latter, so you will need to download the appropriate driver files from
>> the motherboard manufacturer. In Vista, you can supply the files via
>> floppy, thumb drive, or CD.
>

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:04:51 -0400, "nospam" <>
wrote:

> Of course RAID 0 is a risky but no more than putting your data on one hard
> drive and not backing it up.


Sorry, that's not correct. If you put your data on one hard drive your
risk is that if the drive fails, you lose what's on it. With RAID0,
there are two (or more) drives involved; if *either* of them fails,
you lose everything that's on both drives.

That's *double* the risk, and in my opinion not worth it for the very
small, if any, performance advantage RAID0 achieves.


> My original question was simple: why won't
> Vista let me install it on a RAID 0 configuration? I had no problems
> whatsoever with Windows XP if that's worth anything...


Sorry, I can't answer your question. When I used RAID0 here, I did not
have your problem.


> "Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
> >
> > I'd like to recommend *against* RAID0, striping. Although RAID0 sounds
> > like it gives substantial speed improvement, in practice the actual
> > improvement is usually almost unnoticeable. And it has a severe
> > downside: if either drive fails, you lose everything on both drives.
> >
> > I used to run RAID0 on this machine, and stopped using it several
> > months ago. I decided that the increased risk wasn't worth the very
> > small speed improvement. My experience since then has been what I
> > expected. I can't discern any difference in speed with or without the
> > RAID0.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

You should have admitted that you have no clue in the first place or, just
not posted, instead of stretching this thread to death.

I don't know what it is with you guys with the acronyms of MVP, why do you
always feel that you have to "solve" everybody's problems in these groups?
Go see if you can help your mom in the kitchen, instead. Just because you
MVP's have no one else who listens to you or puts up with your nonsense on a
daily basis, does not mean that you have to exist here. Turn your computer
off and go find a friend


"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
>
>> My original question was simple: why won't
>> Vista let me install it on a RAID 0 configuration? I had no problems
>> whatsoever with Windows XP if that's worth anything...
>
>
> Sorry, I can't answer your question. When I used RAID0 here, I did not
> have your problem.
>

nospam wrote:
>
> You should have admitted that you have no clue in the first place or, just

All of us here flip burgers for a living. Perhaps you should hire a real
tech.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/