Windows install will not recognize SATA drive

almostlucid

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2007
6
0
0
I bought a new system from NewEgg (listed below in signature), eagerly put it together and now I can't even get Windows XP Pro up and running. Apparently Windows XP doesn't play nicely with SATA drives!

Here is what I've done to attempt to rectify the problem:
- Updated BIOS
- Verified BIOS settings. Drive is being detected, SATA is enabled, RAID is turned off. I do not want RAID, I only have one drive.
- Upon running WinXPPro install, the setup found the drive, formatted it NTFS, and copied files to it. Next step is re-boot and continue install from HDD. However, when HDD is due to be loaded from, the screen goes black and I'm caught in re-boot loop.
- Used the "F6 method" to install SATA drivers from floppy. Downloaded from the mobo website at Gigabyte.com and included them in the WinXPPro install. Same re-boot loop issue.
- Used nLite to slipstream the drivers into the install disk. Slick, but no go. I made three different disks, one with the SATA_IDE folder only, one with the SATARAID and SATA_IDE folders, and one with the SATA_IDE and mobo drivers included. All yielded same result: re-boot loop after the CD-ROM part of the WinXPPro installation.

I'm baffled here, people. Please help me. Or send Double Stuf Oreos or something. The details of my system are below. I do not have any PCI cards installed, I pulled out the floppy, so it's bare bones.

Thanks for the help!
 

Xsorovan

Senior member
Oct 14, 2002
320
0
0
I don't suppose you have run any kind of diagnostic on the drive (CHKDSK, or whatever tools Seagate supplies) to make sure you're not installing to a bad drive?

That's about the only thing I can really think of honestly. (Maybe try removing one of the RAM chips? (grasping in the dark here))

Another idea would be to load up something that boots just from the CDROM, like BartPE and after you've gone to the first part of the windows install run off the bootable CD and see if you can see the HD and the contents.

I'd go with a drive check first though...
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,257
10,760
136
Many people have reported problems installing XP on a SATA HD using a pre-SP2 install disk so if you have an older version you might want to try slip-streaming the SP2 updates onto the setup CD & giving it another shot before going crazy trying other stuff.
 

almostlucid

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2007
6
0
0
Captante, this WinXPPro disk is SP2 already.

Xsorovan,
I used SeaTools from Seagate and the short and long tests both passed successfully. I can view files on the C: drive. The drive is solid.

I also went through another series of various tricks. I tried different SATA ports on the motherboard, I tried all different combinations of nVidia drivers (including the Vista ones), I took out a memory chip and ran off of just one, I went back and tried the basic WinXP install without including drivers, and I tried the F6 floppy trick again.

Same result. Should I be looking at a different motherboard, or a different drive due to compatibility issues?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Is it a sataII drive that needs a jumper set to work at sataI?

There should not be a compatibility problem.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,257
10,760
136
The Seagate 7200.10 drives are SATA II, but as I recall they come with a jumper installed that limits performance to SATA I ... although I doubt it would cause your problem, you should try removing this jumper & see what happens.

Also do you have the newest BIOS for your motherboard installed?
 

almostlucid

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2007
6
0
0
Yes. Ok, still learning... SATA I must mean 1.5Gb per sec and SATA II is 3.0Gb per second? Yes, that jumper setting was among the things I tried. Didn't matter either way. The mobo does support 3.0Gb/sec.

Yes, I updated my BIOS.
 

almostlucid

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2007
6
0
0
A breakthrough tonight. I removed the 320Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 and put in a 80Gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 drive. The slipstreamed WinXP disk I created worked like a charm and Windows was set up in no time.

SO. Hm. In doing some research in the difference between 7200.10 and 7200.9, there is actually quite a bit of difference. The 7200.10 uses "perpendicular technology" which is a fancy way of saying that data is organized differently on the drive. I don't know, but I'm guessing that we've ran into a driver issue for the new 7200.10 drives.

Thank you for all of your help and suggestions. If you have more, please add them. I'll be reading. I plan on returning the drive... but am unsure what to replace it with. Go with the same drive to prove that I'm right? Or go with a different model/make and avoid the situation altogether?
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,023
0
0
... but am unsure what to replace it with. Go with the same drive to prove that I'm right? Or go with a different model/make and avoid the situation altogether?
Well there's always the WD Raptors if you're willing to pay $
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
How could it be a driver issue? Once data is passed to the drive, it figures out how to record it to the platters without any outside assistance.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,257
10,760
136
I have 2 of the Seagate 7200.10's installed & running in RAID 1 on an Nvidia 590SLI with no problems at all, so my guess is either the drive you have is defective or theres some issue with it & the Gigabyte motherboard.

I suggest you go with one of the 500gb WD SATA 2 drives on sale at Newegg as a replacement... I also have 2 of these & they are faster & quieter then the 7200.10's.

WD 500gb @ $139 w/$10 rebate

 

almostlucid

Junior Member
Mar 6, 2007
6
0
0
Jack, I don't fully understand what happens between the board, drive, and drivers at the point where the HDD is accessed. You probably know better.

Captante, thanks. I'm going to see if the drive will be recognized as a secondary (non-RAID) drive within Windows. If it is recognized, I'll keep it for storage and order a small 7200.9 Seagate drive to run as my primary. My goal is more speed than size on the primary drive. I like to keep my important data files (pics and family vids) on a separate drive from my boot drive.
 

redbeard1

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2001
3,006
0
0
To me, the point that is interesting is that with the drive size change, the install process worked. Is it possible that the slipstreamed XP disk did not fix the 127 gig size limit issue?