Hey all, I was using Toolbox 1.3 without issues. I had the VSS warning but could always go ahaid and trim with 1.3.
Now after installing the new Toolbox 2.0, I have an error message "" and I cannot TRIM anymore, please help!
The system is XP SP3 32 bit, the Volume Shadow Copy (VSS service), is set to manual & is running.
There is no "backup in progress". Also, System Restore is *disabled* in XP control panel (I have no use for this feature).
The error message reported by SSD Toolbox 2.0 is : "Intel SSD optimizer could not run due to the presence of Volume Shadow Copy service data. Likely cause is a backup in progress. Please try again when the backup is finished.".
But if I reinstall 1.3, it works just fine! (even with VSS & System Restore disabled).
(sorry, there is no "edit" on this board and I often forget things ^^;;)
My drive is Intel X-25M 80GB 34nm.
Edit: the 1.3 Toolbox can be gotten here, if other users have the same problem: http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18455/eng/Intel%20SSD%20Toolbox%20-%20v1.3.0.000.msi http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18455/eng/Intel%20SSD%20Toolbox%20-%20v1.3.0.000.msi
ok! I found the solution for 2.0 on XP 32bit :
With 1.3, the service "MS Software Shadow Copy Provider" can be disabled and TRIM will work, past the VSS warning.
With 2.0, the service "MS Software Shadow Copy Provider" MUST be running (therefore set to auto or manual) for TRIM to work.
It's annoying to have to load a new service again for something I don't even use (System Restore completely disabled on all discs), only to have TRIM run.
I really wished Intel would let TRIM run directly on XP systems, when the 2 services used for "VSS" are disabled:
- MS Software Shadow Copy Provider
- Volume Shadow Copy Service
On XP, if the user has "System Restore" disabled to start with, please allow TRIM to run, bypassing the VSS check. Thank you.
Sure, but how could the toolbox know with 100% certainty that the user did not run some third-party tool that left shadow copy data and that continuing would not have adverse effects?
ZXTT, I see your point.
But well, SSD Toolbox 1.3 allowed at least "MS Software Shadow Copy Provider" to be completely disabled with no side effects, why not 2.0?
Another small rant, totally unrelated: It's a shame Intel wrote the SSD Toolbox based on .NET ;(
On XP, I had to install 350+ megs (.NET 2.0) _solely_ to be able to run the Intel Toolbox.
All that wasted disk space is sad (especially on SSD!) :/
Thank you shadowRunner, this helped me to get rid of the message:
"Intel SSD optimizer could not run due to the presence of Volume Shadow Copy Service data. Likely cause is a backup in progress."
To make SSD Toolbox v2.0 run on XP (SP3 32bits english version) I had to make the following services running:
windows management instrumentation
com+ event system
ms software shadow copy provider
volume shadow copy
(.NET 2.0 was already installed, and the "system restore service" is disabled)
Now it works.
I have a few things to say about this:
1) I run Windows XP SP3 32-bit on my machine, and have run it with multiple SSDs (X25-M, 320, and 510-series).
2) I use Intel's SSD Toolbox version 2.0.2.000.
3) I disable System Restore (Control Panel -> System -> System Restore -> check "Turn off System Restore on all drives")
4) I do not touch or adjust any Windows services from stock. That means:
And I have never, EVER seen this error. Again: *ever*. If you want me to make a video proving that fact and upload it to Youtube, just let me know, I'll be more than happy to.
If anyone here is messing around with Windows Services and experiencing problems after doing so, that's your own fault. Sorry, that's just my stance on it. There's really no reason to mess with any Services on Windows -- you're just asking for trouble.
And I fully agree with / sympathise with your complaints about the SSD Toolbox being written in .NET; I couldn't care less about the disk space needed (I have many .NET-specific applications and games on my machine, plus enterprise-level applications), but tools of this nature really should be written in either C or C++. I just hate frameworks/unnecessary layers of abstraction (one of the many reasons computing is becoming crap...).