cd-rom drive not detected driving me crazy

jlarredondojlarredondo
edited September 2005 in Hardware
everitime i have to shut down my computer because I installed a new program or because it frozei get this problem. when i turn it back on the compaq logo comes out then a black screen with this in the middle appers:

the following configuration options were automatically updated:
drive E:

then the compaq logo apears again and it stays there for about 3 minutes then the windows ME screen apears and it the computer finaly begins to load and its ready to use. but then i go to My Computer and the cd-rom drive E: is missing i tryed putting a cd in it and i doesnot play.

the only way i can fix this is if i turn on and off the computer by pressing the power button several times while its loading. i have tryed restoring the computer to factory and it did not work.
help me out this is driving me crazy!!!

Comments

  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    My bet would be the PSU or cdrom is dieing. Have you tried another cdrom in it? That would be first guess.

    Tex
  • jlarredondojlarredondo
    edited September 2005
    what do you mean by another cdrom the drive is the one the one thats not detected its like the cd drive dosent exist.
    im not a pro at computer so what is the PSU?
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    PSU is the power supply.

    Another cdrom? uhhh that means plug another cdrom DRIVE in and see if the problem still exists. Your cd drive is probably failing.

    Tex
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    Try ruling out the CD-ROM as the culprit by replacing it with a known good one, or using the possibly defective one on another computer. PSU, stands for power supply unit btw...

    Additonally, ensure that the IDE cables are secured on both ends. If the drive is set to cable select, try setting to slave and on its own channel (secondary slave).
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    why would you set the drive to slave on its own channel? With no master? As the only drive on its own channel it should be a master at the end of the cable not a slave.

    Tex
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    Tex wrote:
    why would you set the drive to slave on its own channel? With no master? As the only drive on its own channel it should be a master at the end of the cable not a slave.

    Tex
    Why not? If the configuration calls for only 1 HD and 1 CD-ROM (BASIC SETUP), then isolate the drives as much as necessary to assist in ease of management, keep data channels clean, and speed . I have also seen some MOBOs with problems running optical drives as master, or also have problems reporting to windows the PIO/ATA mode correctly...sometimes when the optical shares with the HD. Like I said, sometimes and why not?

    BTW, saying "it should", when referring to the drive configuration reminds me of those by-the-book A+ recommendations. It works, and I can see no reason why not to do it.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    Because the interface was not designed to run slaves without a master thats why. One drive? Then it should be a master not a slave. Set it to master or CS and have it on the end of the cable. And you should never share a cable with a optical and a HD period because of the differant speeds. We agree with that anyway. But if you have one drive on a channel it should be a master and connected to the end of the cable. I have built a few thousand boxs and never had a MB that repoted the PIO/DMA incorrectly as a master and correctly as a slave if...... it was jumpered right to start with and connected to the correct cable position. Sure if you connect a slave to where the master should be on the cable etc.... it might screw up...

    Tex
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    Tex wrote:
    Because the interface was not designed to run slaves without a master thats why. One drive? Then it should be a master not a slave. Set it to master or CS and have it on the end of the cable. And you should never share a cable with a optical and a HD period because of the differant speeds. We agree with that anyway. But if you have one drive on a channel it should be a master and connected to the end of the cable. I have built a few thousand boxs and never had a MB that repoted the PIO/DMA incorrectly as a master and correctly as a slave if...... it was jumpered right to start with and connected to the correct cable position. Sure if you connect a slave to where the master should be on the cable etc....

    Tex
    I won't have a pissing contest here by tooting who built what how many times or what have you. I don't feel the need to do so, especially since building does not always directly reflect the support aspect of PCs.

    I know what I know, as do you.

    The fact is, the configuration works and keeps things simple. In this simple configuration, I want the drives as far away as possible and understandably simple to the average user. Primary Master for the HD, Secondary Slave for the optical device. Now when we start to add more IDE devices, it changes everything. For example, CS can be an issue with some WDHD and plextor drives, so by setting the WD drives to their factory setting, things get alot better. Plextors used to have problems with BX chipsets accepting on the master, while being shared with another optical drive.

    The fact that you have not run into the problem tells me alot. Everyone learns something new, but I keep forgetting that in this field, it's either one way or the highway. :rolleyes:

    Maybe what should be said is, "I have never done it that way, do not agree even though it works, and because I disagree...it is wrong".

    The point is, I have done it one way and so have you...and the are both tried and true methods...by us that is, and many others. If we leave it at that and take this from a troubleshooting perspective, the issue can be resolved. :)

    BTW, saying they were not built to handle that config is like saying my KA24DE was not built to handle a turbo, yet it can and it works. ;)
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    It's not a pissing contest. Some controllers and drives react better when hooked up wrong then others. Doesnt mean its right. Just means it works sometimes. I have been in the biz over 25 years. I built thousands of boxs and supported ten times that amount. Seen all kinds of crap. That worked... sort of....

    One drive on a channel should be a master on the end of the cable. Thats how the interface was designed. Not saying you can't sometimes get it to work otherwise. I am talking about the right way to do it. If we are teaching folks it should be the RIGHT way.

    Tex
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    Tex wrote:
    It's not a pissing contest. Some controllers and drives react better when hooked up wrong then others. Doesnt mean its right. Just means it works sometimes. I have been in the biz over 25 years. I built thousands of boxs and supported ten times that amount. Seen all kinds of crap. That worked... sort of....

    One drive on a channel should be a master on the end of the cable. Thats how the interface was designedf. Not saying you can't sometimes get it to work otherwise. I am talking about the right way to do it.

    Tex
    The right way? Sometimes? I don't get it....I have done this with no problems, as I have done "The right way" as well. I grew accustomed to doing it one way after having problems a couple of times and tada...it worked. If it works both ways, more power to us! Until I see an international specification comittee state that one way is wrong and should be avoided, I do not believe that it is wrong. Just another way to get from point A to B.

    Inexperience is not something lacking on my part either...;)
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited September 2005
    zero.counter wrote:
    I grew accustomed to doing it one way after having problems a couple of times and tada...it worked.

    It "worked" because you didn't jumper the drives right or connected them to the wrong id connector. tada. magic.

    Tex
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    Tex wrote:
    It "worked" because you didn't jumper the drives right or connected them to the wrong id connector. tada. magic.

    Tex

    Now we insult intelligence and belittle others? Yes, I am unsure of what I am doing and ask you, oh great Tex, how should I do it next time?

    Yeeeaaahhh....re-read my posts and I am sure that you will rethink that approach. Again, point being it works either way, you cannot dissprove, cannot explain your thought on the other way of doing something as being wrong, won't hear it any other way, and love flaming newbies.

    I can ascertain your age range, given the fact that you have been working on computers for 25 years. I also know common traits of those in similar positions. Live and learn, it's not that hard to do.

    I am done...you can have the last word...maybe. :)

    Remember, I am not the one asking for help here. I was suggesting a method of trying to fix his problem, you thought it was wrong and explained the method used by you, and continued dragging this thread down by knocking on me for not agreeing. I never saw the Earth flat.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited September 2005
    I can think of no reason why anyone would jumper a lone drive on an IDE Channel as "Slave". I've seen lots of systems have problems because someone accidentally tried it that way, though. ;)

    Since our ultimate goal here is to help jlarredondo get his problem solved, let's not stray too far afield arguing details which may be irrelevant. He certainly has all the advice he needs about jumpering and configuring drives at this point. How about we wait until he weighs in with the results of the advice already presented and then proceed to the next step? :)
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2005
    yeah, i hope you two didnt' chase the poor guy away. jesus :shakehead

    This is not the normal 'helpful' spirit of the site. Can we all just please swallow our collective pride and stop the bickering? Thanks.
  • zero-counterzero-counter Linux Lubber San Antonio Member
    edited September 2005
    profdlp wrote:
    I can think of no reason why anyone would jumper a lone drive on an IDE Channel as "Slave". I've seen lots of systems have problems because someone accidentally tried it that way, though. ;)
    I understand, but as I stated...on personal system builds, I use the Primary/Master and Secondary/Slave setup for ease of use and to keep the channels as separated as possible.

    The idea of understanding jumpers on a hard drive is elementary as I explain. When building systems while working under contract, I stick with recommended specs (School Districts are very specific) and follow the usual Primary/Master and Secondary/Slave setting with no problem. I am just quite unorthodox when it comes to my side setups and feel that just because I do something different, it should not become a spectacle or ridiculed. I agree, the method is de facto, yet not the "final word" or official.

    I may not be as old as you or Tex, but considering that I am only 28, been doing computer work since I was 16...12 years is quite the chunk of my life, considering most of my knowledge is still very relevant. I can actually say that I have been working on them for almost half of my life.

    I do apologize, however I also feel that a difference of opinion should be handled with the utmost respect. I hope that the thread starter gets his issue resolved. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.