Primary IDE Controller Problem

[mel2k3ph]

I recently bought a new hard disk (Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200rpm)
because my old hard disk (Seagate 40GB) has started to go bad.
Although, it already started giving a sign (noisy, system hanging) a
few a months ago. But that's not the problem.
I bought my new HD and replaced it on my old one. I installed WinME on
it and someting is not right. The OS kept crashing at all times not
loading programs properly. Although it boots up normally. I also nitced
that in my device manager, there's an error in "primary ide
controller". I thought it was a driver issue so i downloaded an updated
driver (posted last 2002, not an updated one), reformat, reinstall the
os, drivers, and so on and still it the error is still in there. I
already connected cable properly and still the same. Also, it bothers
that before i 1st formated the disk, in boot up, it shows a message the
drive cannot checked because it was formated, a virus or third party
software which i disabled before the old disk got failed. I know that
is normal, but is there any problem in that? Also during virus scan,
it says that mbr can't be scanned because it is not present. I also get
a boot i/o error log commandline virus scanning. Is this a virus
problem. my previous got whacked because it might be a virus lurking in
the system and memory which my antivirus can't detect. Only a memtool
detects that there might be a virus in the memory. I also installed and
tested Linux OS in the previous hd which it might had a virus bcoz of
the IT magazines with free cds that i bought that i didn't scanned b4.
Any advice or help 4 this problem. Tnx in advance.

 

[Peter]

I recently bought a new hard disk (Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200rpm)

because my old hard disk (Seagate 40GB) has started to go bad.
Although, it already started giving a sign (noisy, system hanging) a
few a months ago. But that's not the problem.
I bought my new HD and replaced it on my old one. I installed WinME on
it and someting is not right. The OS kept crashing at all times not
loading programs properly. Although it boots up normally. I also nitced
that in my device manager, there's an error in "primary ide
controller". I thought it was a driver issue so i downloaded an updated
driver (posted last 2002, not an updated one), reformat, reinstall the
os, drivers, and so on and still it the error is still in there. I
already connected cable properly and still the same. Also, it bothers
that before i 1st formated the disk, in boot up, it shows a message the
drive cannot checked because it was formated, a virus or third party
software which i disabled before the old disk got failed. I know that
is normal, but is there any problem in that? Also during virus scan,
it says that mbr can't be scanned because it is not present. I also get
a boot i/o error log commandline virus scanning. Is this a virus
problem. my previous got whacked because it might be a virus lurking in
the system and memory which my antivirus can't detect. Only a memtool
detects that there might be a virus in the memory. I also installed and
tested Linux OS in the previous hd which it might had a virus bcoz of
the IT magazines with free cds that i bought that i didn't scanned b4.
Any advice or help 4 this problem. Tnx in advance.

What motherboard do you have?

 

[mel2k3ph]

What motherboard do you have?

My mb is kobian(mercury) KOB P4M266. Since its a seagate hd, maybe it
does require a seagate hd tool to format the disk. bcoz i used a
startup disk to format the new one.

 

[Rod Speed]

Peter wrote

My mb is kobian(mercury) KOB P4M266. Since its a seagate
hd, maybe it does require a seagate hd tool to format the disk.
Nope.

bcoz i used a startup disk to format the new one.

Thats fine.

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

I bought my new HD and replaced it on my old one. I installed WinME on

it and someting is not right.

There's one problem. If you don't want Windows XP, go back to Windows
98 or 2000. Windows ME is the worst operating system since... well, I
can't think of any worse commercial OS's.

The OS kept crashing at all times not
loading programs properly.

Sounds about right.

Although it boots up normally. I also nitced
that in my device manager, there's an error in "primary ide
controller".

What's the error message, specifically?

Also, it bothers
that before i 1st formated the disk, in boot up, it shows a message the
drive cannot checked because it was formated, a virus or third party
software which i disabled before the old disk got failed. I know that
is normal, but is there any problem in that?

Sorry, I didn't follow that sentence at all. Care to rephrase it?

Also during virus scan,
it says that mbr can't be scanned because it is not present.

Hmm... sounds like maybe something went wrong in the formatting process.

I also get
a boot i/o error log commandline virus scanning. Is this a virus
problem.

Well if this is true, it seems that you have found the cause of the
problem yourself. Clean the virus, reset the CMOS/BIOS, reformat drives
and start anew.

I also installed and
tested Linux OS in the previous hd which it might had a virus bcoz of
the IT magazines with free cds that i bought that i didn't scanned b4.

That's another sentence that went on for too long and I just couldn't
follow. Maybe it's because I've been working on taxes and everywhere I
look I see W-2 or Schedule X. =P

Take care of things one at a time. Make sure your system is clean of
any viruses THEN see if you are having any hardware or driver issues.

//Kevin

 

[Rod Speed]

There's one problem.
Nope.

If you don't want Windows XP, go back to Windows 98 or 2000.

No need with a hard drive problem.

Windows ME is the worst operating system since... well, I can't think of any
worse commercial OS's.

Your problem.

Sounds about right.

Nope. ME works fine.

What's the error message, specifically?

Sorry, I didn't follow that sentence at all. Care to rephrase it?

Hmm... sounds like maybe something went wrong in the formatting process.

Tad unlikely that the mbr isnt present if the drive can be virus scanned.

Well if this is true, it seems that you have found the cause of the problem
yourself. Clean the virus, reset the CMOS/BIOS, reformat drives and start
anew.

 

[mel2k3ph]

Any other suggestion?

 

[Rod Speed]

Any other suggestion?

Fraid not, like Kevin I found your english hard to comprehend.

You could try rephrasing it and see if that makes it easier to understand.

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

Nope.

Heh, yeah it is. Not related to the hard drive problem, but having a
shotty OS is *definitely* a problem.

No need with a hard drive problem.

After that's corrected, of course.

Your problem.

No, actually, not my problem. I knew better than to get Win ME.

Nope. ME works fine.

Ha! Try working at a help desk for several years and I'd bet your
opinion would change. Of course, poor users play a part, but ME is less
stable than Windows XP, 2000, or even 98se. Out of the hundreds of
tech-minded people I've talked to, you're the first I've heard that
hasn't agreed whole-heartedly. Or perhaps you'd prefer the opinions on
CNET (all on 10-point scale):
(average user rating / editor's rating)
ME - 4.4 / 6.0
2K - 7.6 / 8.0
XP - 6.4 / 8.0

But hey, if it works for you, go with it.

//Kevin

 

[Eric Gisin]

No, actually, not my problem. I knew better than to get Win ME.

Most of us have no problems with WinME, but moved to Win2K previously.

Ha! Try working at a help desk for several years and I'd bet your
opinion would change. Of course, poor users play a part, but ME is less
stable than Windows XP, 2000, or even 98se. Out of the hundreds of
tech-minded people I've talked to, you're the first I've heard that
hasn't agreed whole-heartedly. Or perhaps you'd prefer the opinions on

CNET (all on 10-point scale):
(average user rating / editor's rating)
ME - 4.4 / 6.0
2K - 7.6 / 8.0
XP - 6.4 / 8.0

Meaningless comparision between different families.

Of 98, 98SE, ME, I would only use ME today if I had an older machine.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Heh, yeah it is.
Nope.

Not related to the hard drive problem, but having a shotty OS is *definitely*
a problem.

It isnt a shitty OS.

After that's corrected, of course.

No, actually, not my problem.

Corse it is.

I knew better than to get Win ME.

Wrong again.

Ha! Try working at a help desk for several years and I'd bet your opinion
would change.
Nope.

Of course, poor users play a part, but ME is less stable than Windows XP,
2000, or even 98se.

Bullshit with SE and 98.

Out of the hundreds of tech-minded people I've talked to, you're the first
I've heard that hasn't agreed whole-heartedly.

You wanna get out more.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the opinions on CNET (all on 10-point scale):
Nope.

(average user rating / editor's rating)
ME - 4.4 / 6.0
2K - 7.6 / 8.0
XP - 6.4 / 8.0

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim about SE and 98.

But hey, if it works for you, go with it.

Dont use it anymore thanks.

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

Most of us have no problems with WinME, but moved to Win2K previously.

Who is "most of us?" I've literally talked to hundreds of people who
have had serious problems with ME. All of those I convinced to change
to either 2000 or XP seemed very pleased with the outcome. Unless it
was due to financial constraints (and no offense intended), I wouldn't
take a computer technician's advice seriously if he/she said that they
used ME on their personal machine.

Meaningless comparision between different families.

Well, maybe 2000 vs. ME is a bit of a stretch since they're geared
towards different audiences, but even XP-Home (which I wouldn't
recommend either) is a vast improvement over ME.

Of 98, 98SE, ME, I would only use ME today if I had an older machine.

I have 98se as a secondary boot and it has great compatibility with even
obscure audio hardware that I have. Couldn't say the same for ME.
Actually, XP had more difficulties setting up the hardware than 98se. I
didn't even try the said equipment on ME because I wouldn't waste my
money on ME, but I've heard people with the same hardware having
problems with ME.

Again, if you ask me, ME was a *downgrade* from 98se... and *about* at
par with 95. Heck, I'd rather have Mac OS 9 than ME. This is from my
personal experience, but as I said before...

But anyways, we're digressing from the point. (e-mail address removed), if
you want to spell out a little more clearly what's wrong, what errors
you've received, and what you've tried so far, I'd be more than happy to
give more recommendations. I'm sure the same goes for all the other
guys in here.

//Kevin

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

Nope.

It isnt a shitty OS.

Well, I said, "shotty" by misspelling "shoddy." But I'd also disagree
with your statement. I'd actually go as far as saying *most* Microsoft
OS's are pretty shoddy, but ME takes the cake of them all. I'm kind of
dissappointed in their development of the Windows OS. 2000 was a huge
leap in the right direction. XP was acceptable. Longhorn looks to be
just another hack attempt to be as "cool" as OS X.

Corse it is.

And, not having ME, how is it my problem???

Wrong again.

Oh, so I did buy ME? Hmm... woulda sworn I didn't.

Nope.

Seems like you've got the psychic thing down. First you "know" that I
bought something that I didn't buy, and then you "know" how your opinion
would be if you had more experience. Oh, and again, strong argument.

Bullshit with SE and 98.

Disagreed. 98 & 98se aren't the most stable OS's in the world, but from
the years of my experience with all of the windows operating systems 3.1
to present, ME has been the least reliable.

You wanna get out more.

Again, strong rebuttle. I it is an addage to Confucious that says,
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim about SE and 98.

Real mature. Grow up.
So it's irrelevant that not only a survey of other users, but also
writers in the field agree with me that 2000 and XP are both superior
OS's? Mmmhmmm. So how is that irrelevant to my claim that ME is an
inferior OS? Care to provide an argument past "Nope?"

Dont use it anymore thanks.

Good thinking.

//Kevin

 

[Lil' Dave]

Am top-posting because have only one point to make in reference to MS ME.
In general, ME has 3 major flaws that both consumers and MS MVPs complain
about. Two of the flaws are not uniform for all. Common to all was the
lack of built-in boot to pure msdos mode (not a dos window). For those with
dos-only apps, this was problem.
Not common to all was the ME installation. Depending on the hardware, a
bare ME install may not work on some platforms or be extremely difficult
comparatively speaking. There was also many complaints for those doing a
98/98SE to ME upgrade, which also seemed to be a hardware installation
problem. The history of which found no commonality for either one. A bare
ME install may work, yet an upgrade would not. And, vice versa.

The newsgroups in general that accepted ME's OS for conversation, had many
persons making snide and vague remarks about it. Never specific from these
individuals. Very seldom, was a complaint to be cornered to specfics. When
valid problems (usually install oriiented), the MVPs were unable to help
more often than not. Thus many of these jumped on the bandwagon. As did
many with no experience whatsoever with ME. In 2003/2004, many of these
MVPs conceded that the problem was not widespread and ME could be made to
work on the vast majority of systems without any user digress.

If your apps don't require real mode dos, and ME successfully installs,
there's not alot to pick at. ME, to a small extent, was an experimental
step for MS in developing XP. For many, the safest route was 98SE after
hearing the over-vocal ME complainers. Yet, the percentage with ME install
problems was actually miniscule.

The reality check was pretty straightforward here. Never had a problem.
Both Intel and Via boards were tried. Both Intel and AMD cpus were tried.
The first one I built, my daughter still has with its original hardware
configuration with an PQDI 2.0 image backup on an alternate partition. The
last one I built, I gave to my grandsons just late last year. Am still
wating for either to break as I'm the tech support guy.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eric Gisin wrote:

Who is "most of us?" I've literally talked to hundreds of people who have had
serious problems with ME.

True of any OS.

All of those I convinced to change to either 2000 or XP seemed very pleased
with the outcome.

Separate issue entirely. And thats just as true of SE and 98 too.

Unless it was due to financial constraints (and no offense intended), I
wouldn't take a computer technician's advice seriously if he/she said that
they used ME on their personal machine.

More fool you. Its perfectly usable if XP isnt feasible for some reason.

Sure, its got its quirks, but so does every OS, including XP.

Well, maybe 2000 vs. ME is a bit of a stretch since they're geared towards
different audiences, but even XP-Home (which I wouldn't recommend either) is a
vast improvement over ME.

Sure, but then so is ME over 98 and 95 in spades.

I have 98se as a secondary boot and it has great compatibility with even
obscure audio hardware that I have. Couldn't say the same for ME.

Sure, they dropped support for some dinosaur hardware.

Nothing like your original claim tho.

XP has dropped support for even more.

Actually, XP had more difficulties setting up the hardware than 98se.

Precisely, because they chose to not support dinosaur hardware.

I didn't even try the said equipment on ME because I wouldn't waste my money
on ME,

So you dont actually have any personal experience with it.

but I've heard people with the same hardware having problems with ME.

Sure, they dropped support for some dinosaur hardware. So did XP even more.

Again, if you ask me, ME was a *downgrade* from 98se...

No point in asking you, you never actually used it.

Those of us who actually used both for years found that
ME was quite a bit better than SE in a number of areas, in
spades with the stupid shutdown problem that MS never
did manage to fix with SE and fixed completely in ME.

and *about* at par with 95.

Again, you aint qualified to say, you never actually used ME.

Heck, I'd rather have Mac OS 9 than ME. This is from my personal experience,

No its not, you never ran ME.

but as I said before...

But anyways, we're digressing from the point. (e-mail address removed), if you want
to spell out a little more clearly what's wrong, what errors you've received,
and what you've tried so far, I'd be more than happy to give more
recommendations. I'm sure the same goes for all the other guys in here.

I prefer to keep discussions in the newsgroup they started in.

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, I said, "shotty" by misspelling "shoddy." But I'd also disagree with
your statement.

You arent qualified to disagree, you admit you never ran it.

I'd actually go as far as saying *most* Microsoft OS's are pretty shoddy, but
ME takes the cake of them all.

You arent qualified to rule on that, you admit you never ran it.

I'm kind of dissappointed in their development of the Windows OS. 2000 was a
huge leap in the right direction. XP was acceptable.

It leaves the Win9x/ME family for dead.

Longhorn looks to be just another hack attempt to be as "cool" as OS X.

We'll see. Its too early to say yet.

And, not having ME, how is it my problem???

Its your problem that you cant think of any worse commercial OS.

You arent qualified to say, you admit you never ran ME.

Oh, so I did buy ME?

Corse not. You didnt 'know better', you just bought the silly
storys that you HEARD. You have no personal experience with it.

Hmm... woulda sworn I didn't.

Never said you did.

That's a really convincing argument and rebuttle. <sarcasm />

From someone who admits he never actually used it.

Seems like you've got the psychic thing down.

Best get your seems machinery seen to.

YOU'RE the one pontificating about ME without actually having run it.

First you "know" that I bought something that I didn't buy,

Never did.

and then you "know" how your opinion would be if you had more experience.

You dont even know what experience I have had with ME support.

Oh, and again, strong argument.

Oh, and again, what an impeccible source.

Disagreed.

You aint qualified to disagree, you never ran ME.

98 & 98se aren't the most stable OS's in the world, but from the years of my
experience with all of the windows operating systems 3.1 to present, ME has
been the least reliable.

You have NO experience with ME.

Again, strong rebuttle.

Again, what an impeccible source.

it is an addage to Confucious
gobbledegook.

that says, "The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."

Pathetic, really.

Real mature. Grow up.

Get ****ed. You are pig ignorant about ME,
you admit you have never actually bought it.

So it's irrelevant that not only a survey of other users, but also writers in
the field agree with me that 2000 and XP are both superior OS's?

That wasnt what I said was irrelevant, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit
artist.

And those 'writers' UNIVERSALLY proclaimed that
Win would never fly. Boy do they look pathetic now.

Then they proclaimed that the sun shone out of OS/2's arse, TWICE.

Boy do they look pathetic now.

Mmmhmmm. So how is that irrelevant to my claim that ME is an inferior OS?

Those silly numbers are irrelevant to your pig ignorant
claim that ME is worse than 98 or SE BECAUSE 98
AND SE ARENT EVEN LISTED, STUPID.

Care to provide an argument past "Nope?"

That wasnt even an argument, it was clearly
an answer to the previous question, stupid.

Good thinking.

Hardly rocket science and irrelevant to whether
ME is worse than 98 or SE anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

Am top-posting because have only one
point to make in reference to MS ME.

Thats not going to save your bacon, the netnazis will gut you anyway.

In general, ME has 3 major flaws that both consumers and MS
MVPs complain about. Two of the flaws are not uniform for all.
Common to all was the lack of built-in boot to pure msdos mode
(not a dos window). For those with dos-only apps, this was problem.

Nope, most dos only apps worked fine on what it provided.

Not common to all was the ME installation. Depending
on the hardware, a bare ME install may not work on some
platforms or be extremely difficult comparatively speaking.

Just as true of XP and 2K. NT in spades.

There was also many complaints for those doing a 98/98SE to ME
upgrade, which also seemed to be a hardware installation problem.

Nothing like as many as with those doing a 98/98SE to NT upgrade.

The history of which found no commonality for either one. A bare
ME install may work, yet an upgrade would not. And, vice versa.

In practice there werent all that many systems that saw that problem.

The newsgroups in general that accepted ME's OS for conversation, had
many persons making snide and vague remarks about it. Never specific
from these individuals. Very seldom, was a complaint to be cornered to
specfics. When valid problems (usually install oriiented), the MVPs were
unable to help more often than not. Thus many of these jumped on the
bandwagon. As did many with no experience whatsoever with ME.

Like Buffardi who now admits he has never actually used it.

In 2003/2004, many of these MVPs conceded that the
problem was not widespread and ME could be made to work
on the vast majority of systems without any user digress.

Yep, the new driver format did cause some initial problems,
but thats all they were, just initial problems that got sorted out.

If your apps don't require real mode dos, and
ME successfully installs, there's not alot to pick at.

And most apps that did require real mode dos worked fine.

ME, to a small extent, was an experimental
step for MS in developing XP.

Particularly with the driver format.

For many, the safest route was 98SE after
hearing the over-vocal ME complainers.

Most of which had never actually used it.

Yet, the percentage with ME install problems was actually miniscule.

Precisely, and it fixed some real problem that SE had too.

The reality check was pretty straightforward here. Never had a problem.
Both Intel and Via boards were tried. Both Intel and AMD cpus were tried.

Yeah, I installed it on countless machines and never had a single problem.

The first one I built, my daughter still has with its original hardware
configuration with an PQDI 2.0 image backup on an alternate partition.
The last one I built, I gave to my grandsons just late last year. Am
still wating for either to break as I'm the tech support guy.

I've basically upgraded everything to XP now, just to simplify things.

I still have one complete dinosaur running 95, but thats
because its still a 486 with **** all memory and the kid
that owns it likely doesnt even use it much anyway.

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

You arent qualified to disagree, you admit you never ran it.

No, I admitted I never *owned* it. I've used it extensively.

It leaves the Win9x/ME family for dead.

It was a good improvement... but it still has its problems.

We'll see. Its too early to say yet.

True - all I've seen are screenshots and some breif reviews. But it
doesn't look like there will be any big new breakthroughs.

You arent qualified to say, you admit you never ran ME.

Thinking if you repeat this enough times, it might come true? Sorry, it
won't.

Corse not. You didnt 'know better', you just bought the silly
storys that you HEARD. You have no personal experience with it.

Wrong. Did you not hear that I worked on *hundreds* of machines with
Windows ME on them? I had a Windows machine before ME came out and 98se
was working for my needs at the time, so there really wasn't any need
for me to even consider the "upgrade."

You dont even know what experience I have had with ME support.

Then care to enlighten me?

//Kevin

 

[Kevin Buffardi]

Rod, you have quite an issue dealing with any criticism of Windows at
all. I like Windows for the most part, but just as Lil' Dave, I can
recognize problems with the OS. I'm puzzled why you're so sold on the
idea that Windows ME was some flawless system.

Like Buffardi who now admits he has never actually used it.

You're blantantly twisting my words to create a lie. I never *owned*
it. I *used* it on hundreds of different machines for several years.

I'm sorry to see that you take criticism of an old operating system so
personally and resort to personal attacks. For those reasons, I'm done
with this thread. The point has been made over and over that Windows ME
has flaws. You can stick your head in the ground and call people names
all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Good day to you sir.

//Kevin

 

[Rod Speed]

No, I admitted I never *owned* it. I've used it extensively.

Dont believe you.

It was a good improvement... but it still has its problems.

So has ANY OS.

True - all I've seen are screenshots and some breif reviews. But it doesn't
look like there will be any big new breakthroughs.

Plenty claimed that about XP at the same stage.

Thinking if you repeat this enough times, it might come true? Sorry, it
won't.

I dont believe you. Your pig ignorance about ME stands out like dogs balls.

Wrong.

Easy to claim now in a desperate attempt
to bullshit your way out of your predicament.

Did you not hear that I worked on *hundreds* of machines with Windows ME on
them?

Dont believe you.

I had a Windows machine before ME came out and 98se was working for my needs
at the time, so there really wasn't any need for me to even consider the
"upgrade."

You previously said something completely different.

You're obviously lying.

Then care to enlighten me?

None of your business.