Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag [Request] Intel USB 3.0/3.1 support for the newest Intel Chipsets running Win7

---

@XPLives:
Although you have again written a lot of things, I couldn't find any proof for your statement, that a mainboard manufacturer has changed a single character in any driver file, which has been released by Intel.
Intel can customize as often as it wants its own drivers, but it would never allow any OEM to touch Intel drivers (not even the content of a simple text file like a txtsetup.oem).

Nevertheless all drivers, which are (and have to be) offered by the OEMs, are made by the Company, which had built the related on-board Controller (here: Intel). Intel has never allowed and will never allow any mainboard manufacturer to touch Intel's drivers.

---

I think you are mistaken here. What would prevent a motherboard manufacturer like AsRock from modifying a TXTSETUP.OEM file which is basically a text file which requires no source code to perform? Unless there is some legal contract with Intel that specifically states they couldn't but I doubt Intel would go that far. But Intel would never release the source code of their SATA controller driver. I think they would keep this locked down unless they had a NDA and licensed it to some company and if so we would never know which companies.

What kind of proof were you looking for? I copied the TXTSETUP.OEM from the original source files. One came downloaded directly from Intel's site, the other from Asrock's site.

Did you inspect each TXTSETUP.OEM file I provided in the spoilers?

Are you saying that the changes between the two files don't appear legitimate or significant?

Do you feel that these TXTSETUP.OEM files I posted are not authentic in any way?

I would not lie and tamper these files to prove any point. I copied them exactly from the source file.

Or are you not believing any manufacturer would ever change the TXTSETUP.OEM file to differ from what Intel has on their own site?


Furthermore I repeat: Intel's Download Center has never "officially" released any Intel drivers for customers, who are using an ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock or MSI mainboard. The delivery of suitable drivers for their mainboards is the task of the mainboard manufacturers themselves and not the Chipset manufacturers.

Yes I'm aware that Intel themselves wouldn't offer say modified drivers for Asus or other motherboard manufacturer and have them listed on Intel's site that would be the company themselves releasing the drivers on their own non-Intel site. The only time I've seen a non Intel driver released on Intel's site would probably be for some non-Intel onBoard sound driver and non-Intel onBoard USB 3.0 from NEC / Renesas for their Intel desktop motherboards. I suppose at the time Intel needed a 3rd party manufacturer to integrate onBoard audio and they were still too far away from finishing their own Intel USB v3.0 while other companies had been doing this years prior. If I recall Intel didn't add the Intel USB v3.0 until Z77 or 7 Series. I believe even 6 Series and earlier only companies like NEC and Asmedia had finalized their own USB 3.0 versions before Intel so Intel came very late into the game.

This coincides with this article dated in April 2012.
https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-delivers...-chips-finally/

As my first Z77 did include Intel USB 3.0 ports on it. I even recall on the motherboard box stating Intel USB 3.0 finally introduced and PCIe 3.0 was introduced as well which is why Ivy Bridge is so revered.

Anything prior to the release of Intel USB 3.0 was Renesas USB 3.0 based.

If April 2012 was the earliest Intel USB 3.0 was introduced then it doesn't make sense.

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/product/65855

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/downloa...y?product=65855

USB 3.0 Driver: Intel® USB 3.0 eXtensible Host Controller Driver for Intel® 7 Series/C216 Chipset Family
Version: 1.0.10.255 (Latest) Date: 2/3/2014

Since we know Intel never released Intel USB 3.0 drivers for XP or Vista we can conclude that only Windows 7 was the starting point for driver versions.

If you look closely and we assume April 2012 was the earliest possible release date of a Intel USB 3.0 driver and in less than 2 years time Feb 2014 the driver version is still 1.0.10.255.

You can only conclude that the first Intel USB 3.0 version must have been 1.0.00.XXX. I see no way they would have started at version 15 and then dropped back to or gone from version 1 and jumped to version 15 in less than two years time.

But even for Renesas I could only find an earlier driver for it on board a X58 Motherboard dated Dec 2010 v2.0.30.0.
Then Version 2.1.28.1 Dated April 2012 in about 1.5 years time difference.
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/downloa...-Desktop-Boards

So judging by these two USB 3.0 versions for Renesas vs Intel neither seems to advanced their versions numbers much to have reached 15.



Getting back to the TXTSETUP.OEM, in this case I have found two versions of the same driver one from Intel and one from AsRock which contained two different TXTSETUP.OEM files for the Intel SATA controller driver. The one modified dated earlier was AsRock which leads me to believe Intel provided AsRock the driver first and AsRock manipulated it themselves for their motherboard. Either way it was altered whether or not Intel released it first or AsRock did as the TXTSETUP.OEM files do not match which I believe you are disputing would ever occur.

Did you do a google search for these two Floppy based SATA v10.8.0.1003 driver packages from Intel and AsRock?

If you can't locate them I'll go hunt them down for you if you don't believe my TXTSETUP.OEM files I posted are authentic. I downloaded these files ages ago so I know these are authentic files since I gathered them directly from the websites of Intel and AsRock and not some 3rd party site.

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #33

---

@XPLives:
Since I have much more important things to do and don't see any reason for a withdrawal or correction of my previous statements regarding your question "Do Motherboard Manufacturers modify Intel Drivers?", I will not continue this useless discussion.
My simple answer is and stays: "No!"
If you don't believe me, ask Intel. They would be very interested in getting the proofs for your assertion.
By the way: Microsoft would never give its WHQL stamp to an Intel driver, which has been modified by someone else.

---

I think before we can make a firm concrete answer we have to establish a few things.

We both have important things to do but I didn't bring up this manufacturer will never modify Intel's files.

But I'm asking for a direct answer from you.

Did you examine the two Spoilers in the earlier message where I posted the two differing TXTSETUP.OEM files?

One from Asrock and the other from Intel?

All I need to know is do you consider these files the same or modified files?

As for does Intel care if some motherboard manufacturer alters the TXTSETUP.OEM file? I would say no they don't care because if they did they would have stopped AsRock a long time ago if this was an issue. And as far as I know AsRock is still selling motherboards with Intel SATA controllers so this is a clear indicator Intel does not care that they did this. I also found evidence this is not the first time this has been done.

If you want to compare the original TXTSETUP.OEM from Intel to the one I posted in the Spoiler go right ahead.
I didn't alter it as I said before.

[Intel] TXTSETUP.OEM v10.8.0.1003
Monday, October 17, 2011, 3:34:12 PM
5.19 KB (5,322 bytes)

Direct link:
https://downloadmirror.intel.com/20768/e..._f6flpy-x86.zip

Extract the zip file and locate the TXTSETUP.OEM you will find this matches the one I pasted.

Once we are in agreement this is an unaltered "GENUINE" Intel originated driver file I will locate the AsRock version for you to compare.

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #36

---

@XPLives:

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #34

---

All I need to know is do you consider these files the same or modified files?

---

The content of both files is different, but none of them has been modified by ASRock. Both files have been edited and digitally signed by Intel, before they were sent to Microsoft with the demand to get a WHQL stamp. As last step these drivers were delivered to the mainboard manufacturers.
Why should an OEM like ASRock modify any driver? All on-board Controllers and the related drivers are built/compiled by the chipset manufacturers (Intel, Realtek, Marvell etc.) and not by the OEMs.
It is the task of the chipset manufacturers to deliver matching drivers to the OEMs and it is the task of the OEMs to make these original (untouched) drivers available for the consumers.
.

---

Sorry I'm not sure I know what you mean are you saying Intel modified it and gave it to AsRock and so does every other MB manufacturer before they are resent to Microsoft by each MB manufacturer? Wouldn't that add a lot more middle man involvement for Intel now that you say AsRock sends their file to Intel and has Intel sign it and then sends it to Microsoft to add the WHQL stamp and then sends it back to AsRock.

The TXTSETUP.OEM file is just a text file. Why would AsRock or all other MB companies go through all the trouble to do this?

It make more sense that the driver.sys is not modified nor the driver.cat file. Modifying the TXTSETUP.OEM file would seem safe as long as the company tests their modifications thoroughly before releasing it on their site.

You keep asking why would the OEM like AsRock modify their TXTSETUP.OEM file. It's because they are simplifying the install process for the user. If you've ever installed the SATA AHCI driver by a floppy drive you will know only the first 4 storage devices will show up in the list the rest you will have to navigate. So if you have more than 4 some people may not realize this and assume there are only 4 to choose from. The TXTSETUP.OEM install wasn't made to be user friendly in that regard so it isn't apparent to the user there are more than 4 to choose from which is why I assume AsRock eliminated a bunch of these storage devices from their TXTSETUP.OEM file to avoid any confusion for the user when manually selecting their "matching" SATA controller or get a BSOD 7B trying over a dozen other incorrect ones through trial and error.

So are you now saying that even though the AsRock modified the TXTSETUP.OEM you don't consider this as being modified? I never said the driver.sys file was ever modified at all. Examine both TXTSETUP.OEM files from both files. Are they the same size?

I have located for you the exact file matching the file I got from AsRock.

Here it is in its original form and you can extract the TXTSETUP.OEM file from the AsRock package and compare this to the Intel TXTSETUP.OEM I linked.

You will find I made NO MODIFICATIONS of the TXTSETUP.OEM files as shown in the previous post and were copied exactly as is in their original state as they were downloaded from both sites originally when released many years ago.

I have moved the Intel download link here to make it easier for you to download both and compare.

AsRock TXTSETUP.OEM for Floppy Installation
http://asrock.pc.cdn.bitgravity.com/Driv...0.8.0.1003).zip

Intel TXTSETUP.OEM for Floppy Installation
https://downloadmirror.intel.com/20768/e..._f6flpy-x86.zip

After comparing both are you still saying that the TXTSETUP.OEM files are identical and unmodified? I consider this TXTSETUP.OEM from AsRock to be modified to be different than Intel's whether it was done by Intel or AsRock first there's no way to tell since neither of us were involved in that process. However the modification date on the AsRock appears earlier than the date released by Intel. This is why I believe Asrock got the driver from Intel first and modified it to suit their motherboard. Whether AsRock had to send the driver modifications back to Intel afterwards and Intel then sends it to Microsoft I wouldn't know if this ever took place. Explain why there is a 5 month gap between the AsRock and Intel modified dates for the TXTSETUP.OEM for same SATA driver version?

As far as I know not all companies will get a driver WHQL certified for every version released. Even nVidia does not WHQL certify every single version released.


UPDATE:
I did a Binary comparison of both versions (AsRock and Intel) for these files:
IASTOR.SYS
IAAHCI.CAT
IASTOR.CAT

They are bit for bit identical and no modifications were detected. This tells me that altering the TXTSETUP.OEM file does not appear to break the certification.
So the certification seems to only apply to the driver.sys file.

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #39

---

@XPLives:
The file named TXTSETUP.OEM is not a driver, but a simple text file, which can be altered by anyone by using an editor. Nevertheless I doubt, that a mainboard manufacturer would do that. Most likely Intel offers various variants of that file to the OEMs.

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #38

---

So the certification seems to only apply to the driver.sys file.

---

No, the digital signature applies to the *.INF file as well and to all driver files, which are listed within the INF file (e.g. coinstaller *.dll files).

---

Did you do the file comparison? There are no DLL files in this package.

The .INF files are not altered either as I said before only the TXTSETUP.OEM file. Check both files I linked. Every file seems identical when compared aside from the TXTSETUP.OEM so this does not seem to affect the certificate. Obviously the .INF files can't be tampered seems correct since I have done a lot of this which breaks it.

So are you now considering these two TXTSETUP.OEM files identical and untampered?

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #8

---

@XPLives:
Please stop this absolutely irrelevant and useless discussion!
As you certainly know, the file named TXTSETUP.OEM is only required within the first (TEXTMODE) phase of a fresh installation of old Windows Operating Systems up to Windows XP and Server 2003. Since it is neither a driver nor a signed member of a certain driverpack, it can be altered by everyone.
So I ask you:
1. How relevant is the question, who had altered the text of a certain TXTSETUP.OEM file?
2. What lets you think, that it is/was the mainboard manufacturer, who did it and overtakes the responsability of an installation failure caused by a wrong entry?

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #7

---

So are you now considering these files TXTSETUP.OEM identical and untampered?

---

I have already answered this question.

---

I was only showing you proof that this file TXTSETUP.OEM appears altered since you wouldn't state what kind of proof you needed so you must require the original files with links to the source manufacturer site to believe it and compare it yourself. I cannot find this same identical TXTSETUP.OEM on Intel's side so this leads me to believe it was only done by AsRock and not Intel.

Yes this is used primarily during the Unattended or Manual Text Mode portion for driver installation. But it does not lose its significance in driver installations. I have found that TXTSETUP.OEM to be quite vital in an Unattended Coffee Lake installation.

I already answered to you why I believe this it was Asrock's doing. The TXTSETUP.OEM file was purposely parsed down to 4 essential items(2 RAID, 2 AHCI) from the original larger selection found in the Intel version has 15 items.

These 4 items correlate to the Z68 Motherboard's own SATA Hardware ID and removed the others. That is why I believe it was altered by AsRock and not Intel. Because if not why didn't Asrock just use the same one on Intel's site with 15 items instead of provide one with only 4 items?

Anyhow I did not start this discussion. I merely responded to your query and your disbelief that any files could be modified by a MB manufacturer other than Intel. This is the proof I believe shows this is not always true. I cannot see a reason why Intel will specifically waste their time to modify a TXTSETUP.OEM file for every MB manufacturer so you can only conclude since this file can be modified safely without breaking the certification that AsRock did it and not Intel.

I am guessing by your response that you do not feel that AsRock or any MB manufacturer tampers with the Intel driver package. Since you are calling this useless discussion I will leave this alone despite the evidence to the contrary which you asked for proof and we can both agree to disagree on whether this is modified from the MB manufacturer and move on.

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag [Request] Intel USB 3.0/3.1 support for the newest Intel Chipsets running Win7

---

@XPLives:
Since your initiated discussion about the questions "Do Motherboard manufacturers modify Intel Drivers?" had nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I have split this thread and moved our discussion into >this< freshly created separate thread.
By the way: No Intel USB driver (topic of this thread) and no Windows OS, which is topic of this Sub-Forum (Win7/Vista/W2k8), needs a driver, which contains a file named TXTSETUP.OEM.

---

I never claimed Windows Vista/7/2K8 required the TXTSETUP.OEM for USB 3.0 drivers. The TXTSETUP.OEM was proof of modification in an Intel driver package by another manufacturer.

Actually I didn't open up a discussion I was relabeling the title. The discussion started with your comment and I was addressing it.

[Request] Intel USB 3.0/3.1 support for the newest Intel Chipsets running Win7 (2)
That is nonsense. No mainboard manufacturer has ever touched and will ever touch any driver or INF file delivered by any chipset manufacturer.


Although I have some Intel SATA drivers that do contain the TXTSETUP.OEM file for Windows 7 and 8 OS. So TXTSETUP.OEM files did not die with Windows 2003 Server it seems.

Floppy_RSTe(v4.1.0.1047).zip

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #12

---

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #11

---

The TXTSETUP.OEM was proof of modification in an Intel driver package by another manufacturer.

---

To which extent has the TXTSETUP.OEM been a proof for a driver modification by another manufacturer???

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #11

---

Although I have some Intel SATA drivers that do contain the TXTSETUP.OEM file for Windows 7 and 8 OS.

---

The fact, that Win7 and Win8 cannot and will not use this file, is the proof, that the related SATA drivers have not been designed for these Operating Systems. Maybe the chipset manufacturer just forgot to remove the related file.

---

I have no answer to this as I thought you would have more of a clue since you deal with Storage drivers more with newer OS Vista+.

Since MSAHCI is compatible with even Coffee Lake I haven't had a need to test any Storage drivers. I just found the TXTSETUP.OEM files inside the zip file. I found it mysterious as well and I have not yet attempted an unattended installation of Vista or Windows 7 to see if this works with those files? However a TXTSETUP.OEM might be useful for USB driver integration as I performed an unattended install test with them on XP so it appears it works.

As for the proof of a driver modification by another manufacturer. I'll explain more in detail in the next message.

Zitat von Fernando im Beitrag #10

---

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #9

---

I merely responded to your query and your disbelief that any files could be modified by a MB manufacturer other than Intel. This is the proof I believe shows this is not always true. I cannot see a reason why Intel will specifically waste their time to modify a TXTSETUP.OEM file for every MB manufacturer so you can only conclude since this file can be modified safely without breaking the certification that AsRock did it and not Intel.

---

Where is the proof, that a mainboard manufacturer has modified an Intel driver? I haven't yet seen it.

---

You keep claiming where is the proof? I showed AsRock altered the driver package. The TXTSETUP.OEM files do not match.

Did you even download the two files I linked? Did you examine both TXTSETUP.OEM files contents?

Did they match? Are they 100% identical? Are the file byte sizes identical?

You stated that no motherboard manufacturer ever modified an Intel driver package.

Are the TXTSETUP.OEM files the same from the Asrock and the Intel driver links for Floppy Driver Installation of the same version?

I never stated any driver.sys file was altered. You stated nothing would ever get modified from what Intel has on their site and I showed you that the TXTSETUP.OEM files do not match.

So are you now claiming Intel did those modifications specifically for AsRock for their Z68 MB? That Intel filtered down 15 items to 4 items in the TXTSETUP.OEM themselves?

Are these TXTSETUP.OEM files identical between AsRock and Intel? If not there is no further discussion because if they were identical then that would prove nothing was modified by AsRock and we wouldn't be discussing this. Prove to me AsRock didn't modify the TXTSETUP.OEM file and how would Intel know which IDs to filter out to match the AsRock specific motherboard? Are you going to state that Intel modified each and every TXTSETUP.OEM for every AsRock line of motherboards? Why are the modified dates different by 5 months aside from the TXTSETUP.OEM and file layouts being internally altered? Wouldn't it make more sense for AsRock to use Intel's identical unmodified version?

Again if your sense is mismatching TXTSETUP.OEM files doesn't prove it's been modified then we will have to agree to disagree on our ideas of modification.