thanks paul with your advice and some tinkering, i was finally able to get
every drive read without any problems! thanks for taking some time to reply
to my question.
"Paul" <> wrote in message news:fpostp$v6c$...
> kreepz wrote:
>> my question is hopefully simple. i just want to know how can i hook up
>> all
>> my drives and both writers? at the moment i can't get both writers to
>> show
>> up.
>>
>> I have on my mother board
>> 2 SATA hard drives
>>
>> 1 ATA hard drive
>>
>> 1 DVD writer
>>
>> 1 CD writer
>>
>> mobo info:
>> Mainboard
>> Manufacturer : Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
>> Multi-Processor (MP) Support : 2 Processor(s)
>> MPS Version : 1.40
>> Model : 8IPE1000-G/L
>> Version : x.x
>> System BIOS : 08/19/2005-i865PE-6A79ZG0SC-00
>> Chipset : Intel 865/848 (Springdale)
>>
>> here is the layout of my drives:
>>
>> ch. 0 master = maxtor (ata drive)
>> ch. 0 slave = none
>>
>> ch. 1 master = atapi dvd/cd rom
>> ch.1 slave = none
>>
>> ide ch. 2 = sata (win xp installation)
>> ide ch. 3 = sata (storage)
>>
>> i think i'm not doing the something wrong in the cmos settings. should i
>> set the ide detection to "auto, none or manual"? maybe i am setting
>> something wrong in the intergrated peripherals with the "on-chip sata"
>> settings? i just can't figure it out. can somebody please help me so it
>> will see all of my drives please? thanks in advanced!
>
> At one level, there is the issue of IDE devices playing nice on
> an IDE ribbon cable. The drives have options like
> master/slave/cable_select,
> which are jumper options. Some options would be:
>
> 1) Both drives jumpered "cable select" or CS. For this to work, the
> ribbon cable should have 80 wires. (When you look at IDE cables, one
> kind of cable has fatter looking wires, and if you count them, there
> are 40 wires. The other kind has thinner looking wire, and there are
> 80 wires. The 80 wire cable is setup for cable_select. So only use
> Cable Select, if using an 80 wire cable.)
>
> 2) One drive could be jumpered "Master" and the other one "Slave".
> Suitable for either 40 wire or 80 wire cable. If only one drive
> is present, it goes on the end of the cable, and would be "Master".
> The second drive would be added to the middle connector, and would
> be "Slave". The advantage of that choice, is if you unplug the
> middle drive, then the end one doesn't need the jumper to be
> changed. In fact, with both drives present, you could jumper for
> "Slave" on the end of the cable. But if dropping down to just one
> drive, then you'd have to change the jumper again to Master.
>
> So you can play around with that for a bit, and see if it makes a
> difference.
>
> The ICH5 is complicated, by virtue of the fact that Intel tried to make
> it flexible and handle more than one OS without needing drivers for the
> simplest configurations.
>
> For Win98, the OS is designed for four drives. On computers of that era,
> there were two IDE connectors, two drives max per connector, for a total
> of four drives. The controllers are mapped into the I/O space, at well
> known addresses. IRQ14 and IRQ15 are used for interrupts from the
> controller. Win98 has a built in driver, and Intel wanted it to work.
>
> But notice that the ICH5 controls up to six drives. For the two SATA
> connectors, you can pretend for a moment, that they are equivalent to
> a third IDE cable, as far as the computer is concerned. Since Win98 only
> supports four drives, and six are available, the BIOS setup is used to
> determine which four of six drives are visible. For example, you could
> use one IDE cable, and two SATA drives, and have them all visible in
> Win98. The other IDE cable could not be used in Win98. The BIOS for
> the motherboard, then needs options to enable four of six drives.
>
> For Win2K/WinXP or later, all six drives can be seen. In that case, with
> the right minimum service pack, Windows has a driver that can handle
> PCI mapped storage devices. Thus, four drives on IDE and two drives on
> SATA, can all be handled at the same time.
>
> If you look at the BIOS, your BIOS is different than some motherboards,
> in exposing those options. As near as I can tell:
>
> On chip SATA [Manual]
> SATA Port0 configure as [Sata Port 0]
> SATA Port1 configure as [Sata Port 1]
>
> is an unambiguous way of setting it up for WinXP. That says you want
> to use all six drive ports, and don't want the BIOS fooling around
> with which ports are enabled. In theory, the "On chip SATA" [Auto]
> should do the right thing, based on your description of the five
> drives you're using. So my suggestion above is not mandatory. In
> other words, "it *should* have worked".
>
> So what I'd do, is go back and look carefully at how you set up
> the drives. If making one Master and the other one Slave, for the
> opticals is not working, then try swapping their roles. Make the
> first one Slave and the other one Master. And if that doesn't work,
> make sure you have an 80 wire cable, and then set both
> opticals to Cable_Select.
>
> Also, another option you have, is to place one hard drive and one
> optical on the same ribbon cable. Drive transfer rates are independent
> on modern computers, so a mixture of a slow optical and a fast hard
> drive, does not "force" the hard drive to run slower. They each can
> have their own ATA rate.
>
> So if the two opticals on the same cable, don't play nice and
> get detected, you can also put a hard drive and an optical on
> the same cable. Then play with making one Master and the other
> one Slave, and see if the detection phase goes any better.
>
> I expect playing with the cables, at this point, is better
> than fooling around in the BIOS. For the ICH5 generation of
> hardware, the BIOS is usually set up by default, for WinXP, and
> only needs messing around, if you want to run Win98.
>
> You should not need to fool with "Detection". Leave such functions
> at [Auto], at least for now. I've had one of my early motherboards,
> hang in the BIOS, when you fool around with Detection. So for the
> time being, I'd try cable reconfiguration as a first step. There
> are some older optical drives, where not all the Master/Slave/CS
> functions work equally well, which is why some experimentation
> may be needed at the cable level.
>
> HTH,
> Paul
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
