New HD detecting problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
hello!

motheboard: abit kt7a-raid (HPT-370)
storage: 2 x 40Gb HD set on raid 0
os: windows xp

problem:
i recently got a new 160Gb Hitachi. i connected it on a free IDE port. bios detects HD normaly and when booting to DOS all kinds of disk tools (partition magic, ghost, etc ...) are capable to detect HD. when booting into windows, HD is not there (disk management doesnt see it). i have set a reg key EnableBigLba, set partitions manualy with partition tool and nothing helps. but when i disabled raid controler and tried to install fresh copy of windows only with new HD, evrything works ok. oh and if i connect HD to a raid controler as JBOD, windows detects it normaly but unfotunally after 20-30 sec after system is up, blue screen appears with some strange msg about "driver stack buffer overflow error"

any idea?

thanx
 
Tari did you change the boot sequence in your Bios? Sometimes with certain Motherboards, you have to set it as "SCSI" in the "1st Boot Seq" option, for your PC & WIN OS to recognize a SATA HD.
 
TMSKILZ read my post again and you'll see i am talking about IDE and not SATA. And boot seq has nothing to do with not detecting secondary HD in Windows
 
In windows when you go to the device manager can you see the hard drive (Doubtful but maybe)? If you can't have you tried find new hardware "Scan for hardware changes"? Have you tried hooking it up to a different computer?
 
tried on other computer and it works. as i said before if i disable raid and connect only new HD to IDE than i can normaly install windows on it and it works great. and even if i do a fresh windows install on raid disks with new HD on IDE as a secondary disk, its also ok. but this doesn't solve the problem, right :(
 
ok i solved the problem :bounce:

in Device manager i have deleted Primary and Secondary IDE Channel and in Storage volumes all Generic volumes and restart. after restart new disk was detected

edit:
oh and thanx for trying to help :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back