SATA Drive Under Win XP

[joshc]

I installed Win XP on my new Barracuda 7200.7 160 GB SATA drive and I was running tests to make sure it's fine. I ran the SeaTools seagate diags and my drive showed up under "Unknown Controller" and was called Bios Drive. I guess is there anyway that I may not have installed the drivers properly or something so my drive isn't being recognized as a SATA drive?

Basically, anyway to check that my drive is being recognized correctly?

Thanks.

 

[MrChad]

Does Windows boot? Does your drive show up in My Computer? Then it's working correctly.

 

[joshc]

LOL, yeah it does. Any idea why it would show up under SeaTools under "Unknown Controller"? Also, any idea why both my partitions would fail the file structure tests? I just booted from the Windows XP CD and created and formatted the partitions that way.

Thanks.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: joshc
LOL, yeah it does. Any idea why it would show up under SeaTools under "Unknown Controller"? Also, any idea why both my partitions would fail the file structure tests? I just booted from the Windows XP CD and created and formatted the partitions that way.

Thanks.

What type of controller shows up when you look in Device Manager? (Start->Run "devmgmt.msc") Does it show up as an "IDE ATA/ATAPI Controller" or a "SCSI Controller"? And what is its name?

What type of system do you have? (Mobo make/model would be ideal.)

 

[joshc]

I've got an MSI Neo4 Platinum. In Device manager it shows up under the NVIDIA nForce4 ADMA Controller as a IDE ATA/ATAPI controller. I guess that would mean it is all setup correctly?

 

[kylef]

Hmm, I don't have any nForce4 systems to compare it to.

Can anyone help him out by checking to see if that is what he should be seeing?

(As long as it shows up as a Serial ATA controller in Device Manager you should be fine. I was worried that it was configured for "IDE emulation" mode in your BIOS and that was causing problems.)

 

[joshc]

Thanks, I think you're right and it's fine. I have another problem but that's being addressed in another of my threads and it might be related to the ">137 GB" problem.

thx.