Windows XP x64 on Thinkpad X300 - join forces here to find drivers!

OK, I'm determined to find the best way to get my original copy of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition installed and working on my Lenovo Thinkpad X300 6478-1HU (Type: 6478 Model: 1HU)

The hardware specs of your model x300 are in tabook.pdf, scroll down for the file here:
http://www5.pc.ibm.com/us/me.nsf/LenovoInfo?OpenAgent&key=Thinkpad+literature&&cntry=US-L

Already found a couple of pointers using this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=239303
but driver versions and the XP x64 files are a lot newer now, so things might have changed quite a bit..

- AHCI / Compatibility mode issues for the SATA Samsung SSD:

I created my own .iso from an original Windows XP Pro x64 Edition, because it wouldn't see the harddisk without slipstreaming the Intel AHCI Storage 'drivers'. I had my own nice stripped down version of x64 using nlite ( http://nliteos.com/ ) with the latest Intel Matrix Storage Manager driver included.
I unpacked iata82_enu.exe using "iata82_enu.exe -a" at commandline, then used the files from Intel's Driver64 folder;
; ** Revision: Version 8.2.0.1001
; ** Date: 05/07/2008
; ** Abstract: Windows* INF File for Intel(R) Matrix Storage Manager Driver

I installed XP x64 on my x300 booting from this iso I created succesfully,
except after the installation was fully finished, right at the point it would normally boot with the finished Windows install, it gave me a STOP Error message (a 0x0000007B one) i.e. a Blue Screen Of Death and it would not start (not in SafeMode either).. Bummer!

Then when I switched the SATA setting in BIOS from AHCI (default) to Compatibility it would go further and show me the installed x64 XP system. It would however also say it found new hardware (i.e. IDE controllers needed to be installed :-( ), forcing me to install those and presumably mess up the AHCI option..?

I'm now in the process of figuring out why it would install nicely, put everything on the SSD and then not boot into the OS after having finished... Apparently the setup didn't install the correct driver for AHCI ? It would use the right one during install, but afterwards it would not?

I already found a mighty interesting thread about it here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=164159
(the solution posted here did not work for me yet though)..
If anyone has any suggestions, jump in.

- New display drivers from Intel were perfect. Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family:
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/fil...nal+x64+Edition&lang=eng&strOSs=109&submit=Go!

- None of the ADI Soundmax drivers from Lenovo work for XP x64. Have yet to find a good replacement for them.

Any of you also using XP x64 ? I prefer this over Vista, for obvious reasons: It's just faster.

 

To kill the stop error, instead of slipstreaming the AHCI driver, slipstream SP3 which has the AHCI driver included (at least for x86 this is the case, so I guess for x64 as well). It could be that the needed drivers aren't in the 64 folder, but in the All folder (if it's there)

If you can boot, just install the Intel AHCI/Storage drivers and you should be fine (unless XP x64 is dumber than it's 32-bit counterpart). Sound drivers can be a hell to find... I'll check back on that later
What's the exact model number, motherboard manufacturer? (visible under normal xp)

 

There is no SP3 for Win XP x64 (yet). I have made the setup CD iso all up to date with any and all hotfixes.

And as I wrote; slipstreaming the AHCI drivers only made it possible to install. Didn't work afterwards.

"Just install the AHCI/Storage drivers" doesn't apply either. I tried. See here for a similar discussion on that.

 

Hey there bayme,

I was just wondering why would you want to install XP x64 in the first place? I can't really think of any reason for using 64bit version of XP over 32bit version? I know that you have your original copy but wouldn't it be easier and faster to get your hands on 32bit copy... ?

Additionally, I noticed that you've installed openSuse on your X300. Well, how did it go? (; Did you have many problems with setting up hardware? What version of suse do you use? I'd appreciate this info, thanks in advance.

 

I use openSUSE 10.3 64 bit, which by the way also doesn't really like AHCI in BIOS. (In fact, it seems I can only multiboot when SATA is in Compatibility mode.)

Why I prefer XP x64 ?
Geez. That question alone tells me you're not someone who could even remotely understand the answers. Try Google.
Also, seen the link in the first post? http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=239303

Or http://www.imagebam.com/image/9786675364575 for that matter.
XP Pro x64 blows any thinkable other OS off the market in performance tests that are extremely relevant for my computer/notebook use.

I've also tried the pre-shipped Vista, which made me sick and sad. I then tried Windows Server 2008 Standard x64 and Converted it to workstation, which was quite good actually, but just too much like what Vista could have been. Problem with that trial OS is that you can only use it for 240 days and then need to find some crack making it work longer. That's too much uncertainty for the way I need to be able to use and know my notebook.
I then tried a Vista x64 version, which by the way could not work with the newer AHCI drivers from Intel, while Windows 2008 Server x64 would and actually seemed to really like those drivers.
Win 2008 x64 and Win XP x64 are the best Operating Systems on the planet today, hands down, no discussion.
I like linux, but for desktop/workstation use it's still a PITA to get it to do as fast and as easy what I would expect it to be able to do, compared to the forementioned two Windows OSs. oSUSE isn't even that fast and lean compared to Windows XP x64.

 

ok, but that's not the anwser for all of my questions regarding your opensuse experience

I somehow feel offended by this statement, should I be... ?

Well, there's one more OS out there that you have consistently omitted in your rant - Windows 2003 Server. I assure you it's noticeably faster than XP or vista/2008 and, surprise surprise, it comes in 32-bit version which by definition makes finding and installing drivers a LOT easier. For that matter most of regular XP drivers work either straight away or with little tweaking (which should not be a problem for a person like you, who very well understands why XP x64 is better than vista). Oh, and if you (as suggested) try google, you'll find out that XP x64 and Win2003 are essentially the same (NT 5.2)

You say that using linux as a workstation is a PITA but you seem to have a hell of a trouble with finding drivers for XP x64 - isn't that a PITA? OpenSUSE isn't the fastest distribution out there, perhaps you should try something else? And as I use both Win2003 and Linux (latest Mint and Fedora releases) I find Linux superior in terms of stability and performance, at least on my hardware.

I do however understand why you may want to stick with XP x64 - because you have a license for it. I wish you good luck in your search for compatible drivers.

Regards

 

Hi guys,
*thumbs up* for bayme for his efforts. Perhaps, his anwer was a bit heated up for you maciej, but dont go flames, it would unnecessarily broke this thread, which can be helpful to others.

Perhaps i can answer the question for you maciej why to youse xp x64 on ntb
It is fairly simple: if you have 4gb ram and you want to use them hand down and dont want to use vista for many reasons like:
- higher battery consumption
- bigger system load (more processes meaning more cpu dedicated to system and not app)
- using of older app not running on vista and yet 64b capable, or actually aimed ot be running on xp x64
- some older games (if you wanna game on ntb) run faster than under vista
- important (for me) boast! in front of your friends and feel differently
- learn something new during process of installation (for sure)
- ...... cant remember

As for linux i run 64 bit centos (recompiled redhat) because i manage rhel servers. Otherwise i'd be using debian.

Perhaps you dont have to agree on everything, but for me the battery is important because of travelling and because of apps that i support.

xp x64 is not for everyone, it is for ppl who are at least experienced users, since the system is not supported officially
thats about it

 

Do you want me to go deep into openSuse in a thread targeted at Win XP x64 ? Start a new thread, and I'll see if I find the time to post in it, but frankly, like I wrote, I'm not that fond of linux in a desktop/workstation world. Do you know (I mean really know) TotalCommander, SoundForge and Vegas? There are no decent workable replacements for those in linux, there just aren't. You can run Windows virtually, but that's just a big hassle, plus really slow.

I think it's rather silly to ask me the questions you're asking. Have you even seen this?
Take a look at the purple line. Check where it performs the best.

Which is actually using XP x64's identical kernel. You might want to first start learning some more about Windows operating systems before trying that on me.

No it isn't. Especially not the 32 bit version of it. I've used w2k3 for a while on desktop machines, drivers were even harder to find than they were for XP x64.

Sorry, I find your silly comments not really worth my time, so I won't be responding to your questions anymore.

 

I don't understand what is your problem bayme... I politely asked you a question and you keep treating me like I don't know a thing. You seem to be new to this forum but you should change your attitude - it'll take you much further.

Well, I used TotalCommander for a while, decent piece of software. Don't know much about SoundForge and Vegas but you previously said that you don't use linux cause it's not fast enough and when I pointed out that the distribution you use isn't the fastest one out there you switched your argument to lack of software. I'm not saying you should use linux but at least be consistent in your reasoning.

Well, I beg to differ. It's neither big hassle nor really slow. As a matter of fact installation is quite easy (at least for Sun's xVM Virtualbox and VMWare) and Windows XP boots up and run noticeably faster than native installation (installed in Virtualbox, cause I didn't play with VMWare that much so can't comment on it). That's my experience and other people as well. I won't provide links as you didn't provide any either to back up your theory. However I do understand that virtualizing is not the best option for everybody.

And I think it's rather silly to post images - this is not flickr. Your image, whatever it's actually trying to prove, does not even include Win2k3 so I don't know what is your point here in regards to what I posted...

Well, incorrect again. I said XP x64 and Win2003 share the same kernel and that's true. According to this article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition#Windows_XP_64-bit_Edition) x64 is actually based on 2003's codebase. I'd imagine that Wikipedia is not the best place to learn about Windows OS but I post the link to back up my statement, which you, again, did not do.

Your results may vary, but I've installed 2k3 on many machines to be used as workstation OS and every single time it performed better than XP (32bit). If you google a bit you've find that many people out there were switching from XP to 2k3 for the very same reason. And it's well known that XP is WAY faster than vista so my statements stands. As for drivers again your results may vary but for me only thing I couldn't get to work in 2k3 is memory card reader on my Asus laptop - everything else worked with XP drivers either straight away or with a little tweaking.

I would say that your comments are silly since you don't back them up anyhow. You just post a bunch of stuff and expect people to believe in it. This time I didn't post any questions but I'd rather if you won't respond so I won't have to correct you again.

@helikon: Thank you very much for your comment but actually 32bit version of Windows 2003 is capable of handling 4gb of RAM. I'm not sure which one (probably Enterprise and Datacenter). I agree with your other points but they all stand for 2k3 as well.

I don't mean to pollute your post. I asked a question and was presented with very negative response which was also incorrect in many ways so I felt like I needed to reply. I don't mind anybody using Windows XP x64 (or any other OS for that matter) and wish you all very best in your quest for completing drivers for X300. I simply wanted to present you with alternative and I did it so my job here is done (-;

 

OK, finally some advancement in the AHCI with Win XP x64/Win 2003 x64 debacle; http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=444831

According to the hardware specs (tabook.pdf, see first post) my X300 has the ICH8M-Enhanced-S I/O Controller Hub, so I think the best IO-storage AHCI driver is to be found in iaAHCI.inf, shortnamed iaAHCI_ICH8MEM (for nliteos). Related data from the .inf file is:

PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2829&CC_0106.DeviceDesc = "Intel(R) ICH8M-E/M SATA AHCI Controller"

%PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2829&CC_0106.DeviceDesc% = iaStor_mobl_Inst, PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2829&CC_0106
%PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2929&CC_0106.DeviceDesc% = iaStor_mobl_Inst, PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2929&CC_0106

Now let's merge that with the ahci.reg file you need to enter, as mentioned in the manual here:

Code:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\CriticalDeviceDatabase\pci#VEN_8086&DEV_2829&CC_0106]
"Service"="iaStor"
"ClassGUID"="{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\iaStor]
"Type"=dword:00000001
"Start"=dword:00000000
"Group"="SCSI miniport"
"ErrorControl"=dword:00000001
"ImagePath"="system32\\drivers\\iaStor.sys"
"tag"=dword:00000019
"DisplayName"="Intel AHCI Controller"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\iaStor\Parameters]
"queuePriorityEnable"=dword:00000000

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\iaStor\Enum]
"0"="PCI\\VEN_8086&DEV_2829&SUBSYS_B0051458&REV_02\\3&13c0b0c5&0&FA"
"Count"=dword:00000001
"NextInstance"=dword:00000001

Saving this as "ahci.reg", it should work. I'm going to test this later today..

Pretty exciting, because if it does convert my XP install from IDE to AHCI, it means the XP x64 install/OS will be blazing fast compared to what a Vista install on a x300 would ever hope to be. No ridiculous winsxs folder, no UAC (I detest the entire thing, it's for dumb users, I'm not a dumb user).

Now only find decent Soundmax drivers. Maybe the 32 bit XP drivers just work, I didn't even try those yet..