Windows 7 - DVD burner vanished

Asked By Linea Recta on 04-Aug-12 10:36 AM
I have a strange problem with my DVD burner since yesterday.
When running Windows I cannot open the tray anymore.
Also, the device seems vanished from Windows explorer and from hardware
configuration.

But when I boot into BIOS, it is still recognised and then I can also open
the tray normally.

What can I do?


Windows XP SP3
LG GSA-H44N


--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os


Paul replied to Linea Recta on 04-Aug-12 10:59 AM
It helps to know what "interfering" software you have installed.
Tools which mount virtual CD images, can upset burner operation.
Don't know about tray buttons though.

http://forum.daemon-tools.cc/f19/dvd-tray-wont-open-29555/

On Linux and Unix boxes, the tray button can be disabled,
to prevent media with "busy" files, from being removed
and causing the dependent software to crash. So as far as
the phenomenon of a button that does not work goes, this
is not unexpected. The button can be disabled by software
quite easily. it is not like the button is just tied to the
tray motor directly. If you boot a Linux LiveCD for example,
by default the button on the tray of the drive with that CD
in it, will be disabled.

Sometimes it can be a hardware failure, but your BIOS check
shows that is not the case.

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 04-Aug-12 02:45 PM
I now write from my notebook.
The PC has been having bizarre behavior this evening, being clicking sounds
(I suppose one of the hard disks) and spontaneous rebooting. The DVD burner
itself must be OK, because I could boot up from a Macrium Reflect boot DVD.

This is bad news, I suppose old fashioned IDE hard drives are not sold
anymore I suppose?

A glimpse at the concerning PC:


--
regards



PC
Windows XP Pro SP3 - mobo: Asus P4B266 - cpu: Intel P4 1,6 GHz. - RAM: 1512
MB. - video: Matrox Marvel G450eTV 32 MB. (AGP) - monitor: 19-inch Medion
Akoya MD 20119 - sound: SB Audigy 1394 (PCI) - hd: 2 X Maxtor 60 GB. -
DVD/CD-ROM: Toshiba DVD-ROM SD-M1712 - DVD+RW/+R: LG GSA-H44N - analog:
Dynalink Lucent Win Modem 56k6 (PCI) - printer: HP DeskJet 720C (parallel) -
scanner: HP ScanJet 2200C (USB) - keyb: PS/2 MS Internet Keyboard - mouse:
Logitech Pilot Wheel Mouse Optical (USB) - webcam: Logitech QuickCam Zoom
(USB) - removables: Maxtor One Touch 120 GB (USB) - Medion 500 GB (USB) -
Iomega ZipDrive 100 (parallel)
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 04-Aug-12 03:28 PM
A good root cause, is +12V power supply rail out of spec. That
makes the clicking noise.

This can be caused by placing too many heavy loads on one Molex
chain. I had that happen when my ATI video card was powered by
the same Molex power cable chain, as several hard drives. The
hard drives started clicking. Once the video card was put on its
own chain, there was "peace in the valley".

But if the power supply is going out, then a slightly low (11V on 12V
rail) power output, can be enough to upset storage.

Think back to what wiring changes you have made recently. It could be
you reconfigured the wiring, while adding storage.

Also, if it is the power supply failing, twice now I have received
advanced warning. If you use fixed speed fans in the computer, you will
notice the fixed speed fans start to "wander", and go up and
down in frequency slightly. The human ear is sensitive to the
tone of the fan. On my first power supply failure, I noticed
the fans started to wander, many days before the power supply
no longer had enough +12V to do anything. The last time
I tested that (failed) supply, it cannot even put out 1 amp of
current on +12V, before the output voltage begins to drop. So
the output became very weak, and the current now, is not even
enough to run one disk drive all by itself. If you sit the
supply on the bench, with no load, all the voltage read right.
But if you put even a tiny electrical load on it, it goes
out of spec. it is more suited to running a flashlight bulb
now, than 100-200 watts of computer gear. At least it did not "blow"
and take stuff with it.

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 04-Aug-12 05:02 PM
I have made no hardware changes recently. About a year ago I replaced the
power supply. I think I even posted that event in this group. Since that
time everything worked fine.

I have now extracted the "bad tooth" being drive D: which was configured as
primary slave. Luckily this was not the system drive. I can still boot from
C: and I have changed the swap file back to C: again.
Also, both DVD devices work again.

The hard drives were both Maxtor 6L060J3 IDE/ATA 60 GB.
I had the drives monitored by 'Hard disk sentinel' and already noticed some
time ago that D: was reported as less than 100%.
For C: it still reports 'exellent' at this time.






That sounds like a 'burn out'. BTW I feel like that myself :-((
For the moment I assume it is not the power supply, because I am not going to
replace the power supply on a yearly basis.

Some time ago I wrote here about an old hard disk with a broken IDE pin,
wondering wether the drive would still work. I tried it as a replacement,
but it was not detected in any way by the BIOS. So tha's another drive I can
throw away.

If I cannot find some replacement for the broken hard disk, it is inevitable
I will have to look out for a modern PC...






--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 04-Aug-12 05:46 PM
1) There are still IDE drives for sale. They've been out of production
for some time, so it is hard to say where they are coming from.

2) You can also use a SATA drive, and put an adapter in the back of it.
I have one of these, and so far it is worked with everything I tried it on.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812200156

StarTech IDE2SAT

The black part goes into the new SATA drive. The bare gold pins on the back,
are for a 40 pin IDE connector. it is a bit hard to get the connector on and off
the gold pins. There is a "Master:Slave" jumper as well. So if you want, you
can buy two of those, two SATA drives, and connect two SATA drives to one 80 wire
IDE cable.

Comes with power cable in the box, for daisy chain connecting it.

http://ca.startech.com/media/img/products/gallery_large/IDE2SAT.C.jpg

The main impediment to drive shopping, is whether your system has any drive
capacity limits. My oldest system, only drives up to 137GB work properly. It
was limited to 64GB or so, before the BIOS flash update. Most other systems
here, work past that point. Really old systems, might freeze if a 33GB or larger
drive was connected, in which case you could try the IDE jumper block "CLIP" jumper.
That jumper changes the geometry declaration enough, to make the drive work.

This is an example of a weird one. It claims to be a 7200.10 generation
drive, yet it has an IDE controller. 80GB capacity. So they are still selling
IDE drives.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148236

HTH,
Paul
Char Jackson replied to Paul on 04-Aug-12 08:22 PM
Ouch, they really punish you on the price. 80 GB for $100.
Paul replied to Char Jackson on 04-Aug-12 09:31 PM
Yup. You really have to love that old computer.

I'd probably have trouble finding that disk locally, as the big
box stores will not touch IDE now. And I think my usual supplier of
hard drives, does not have any IDE left either.

So when you find some product, you really cannot complain too much.
If you have to repair someones old machine, without screwing with
it too much, it is probably not that bad a deal. Not everyone wants
my style of "adapter solution". And mechanically, there is not always
room to fit an adapter. Some of the smaller cases would not allow it.
My Sonata with the side mount trays, I do not think it would fit in
there. Even regular drives, the side panel presses on the cabling.

Paul
Unk replied to Linea Recta on 05-Aug-12 01:05 AM
1. Click Start, and then click Run.

2. In the Open box, type regedit, and then click OK.

3. In the navigation pane, locate and then click the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E965-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}

4. In the right pane, click UpperFilters.

Note You may also see an UpperFilters.bak registry entry. You do not have to remove that entry.
Click UpperFilters only. If you do not see the UpperFilters registry entry, you still might have
to remove the LowerFilters registry entry. To do this, go to step 7.

5. On the Edit menu, click Delete.

6. When you are prompted to confirm the deletion, click Yes.

7. In the right pane, click LowerFilters.

Note If you do not see the LowerFilters registry entry, unfortunately this content cannot help
you any further.

8. On the Edit menu, click Delete.

9. When you are prompted to confirm the deletion, click Yes.

10. Exit Registry Editor.

11. Restart the computer.

Unk
Linea Recta replied to Unk on 05-Aug-12 01:39 PM
I had this done yesterday by Fixit, which did not find any problem...



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Unk replied to Linea Recta on 06-Aug-12 01:08 AM
1. Click Start, and then click Run.
2. In the Open box, type regedit, and then click OK.
3. In the navigation pane, locate and then click the following registry  subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E965-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}
4. In the right pane, click UpperFilters.
Note You may also see an UpperFilters.bak registry entry. You do not have to remove that entry.
Click UpperFilters only. If you do not see the UpperFilters registry  entry, you still mighthave
to remove the LowerFilters registry entry. To do this, go to step 7.
5. On the Edit menu, click Delete.
6. When you are prompted to confirm the deletion, click Yes.
7. In the right pane, click LowerFilters.
Note If you do not see the LowerFilters registry entry, unfortunately this content cannot help
you any further.
8. On the Edit menu, click Delete.
9. When you are prompted to confirm the deletion, click Yes.
10. Exit Registry Editor.
11. Restart the computer.
Unk


Did you manually check to see if it actually deleted those filters???

Unk
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 06-Aug-12 08:45 AM
I have been looking in the mainboard manual but I cannot find any hard
information about drive capacity limit.
Asus P4B266 - cpu: Intel P4 1,6 GHz. - RAM: 1512 MB



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 06-Aug-12 11:49 AM
it is defined by year of origin, amongst other things.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040418052920/http://www.asus.it/support/english/techref/48bithdd/index.aspx

support 48bit HDD (137 GB HDD)."

That is interpreted to mean, "designed" after Jan.1,2003. The idea being,
the IDE interfaces support "double-pumped" register access, which is how
the drive acquires 48 bit addressing and the handling of larger drives.

Since your P4B266 is in the table, it supports >137GB IDE drives,
if BIOS 1007 or later is installed. So P4B266 needed a BIOS update.
That possibly helps, if booting a partition above 137GB. Not really
sure what else would matter in there.

P4B266   Yes   1007

For earlier motherboards, I have another old FAQ page which listed
a few motherboards and their limits. Anything after 2003, on IDE, is
supposed to be OK.

And for SCSI drives, they do not have the same issue, as the
command interface is different. Even pseudo-SCSI interface
devices such as RAID controller chips, when in RAID mode, can
we are still dealing with the IDE ribbon cable interface.
If you install a Promise Ultra133 TX2 IDE card, in a non-compliant
motherboard, that is another way to fix it. As the Ultra133 TX2 is
ATA/ATAPI 6 level of interface, and handles large drives. (Some
of my older computers, have a card like that installed. At one
point, Maxtor even bundled a controller card, with one of
their ridiculously priced retail hard drives.)

The support needed, to send 48 bit addresses, is described in
this proposal. This would pre-date the inclusion of 48 bit
addresses in the ATA/ATAPI spec. Most of the magic, seems
to be in the hard drive part.

http://www.t10.org/t13/technical/e00101r6.pdf

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 06-Aug-12 01:17 PM
OK, I have bios version 1010. This is the latest version exept for one,
which is branded as "beta".

Furtermore, according to this reply:

http://support.asus.com/faq/detail.aspx?SLanguage=nl-nl&p=1&m=P4B266&s=15&hashedid=n/a&os=&no=FC4F308B-BA9D-73EF-EAE2-112D10B69093

the P4B266 is able to work with 200 GB drives. So I could consider getting
this drive:

http://www.informatique.nl/110610/western-digital-160gb.html

Although the price is high per MB base...





Concerning 48 bit HDD, this seems supported by P4B266:

http://support.asus.com.tw/technicaldocuments/technicaldocuments_content.aspx?SLanguage=en-us&NO=501



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 06-Aug-12 01:57 PM
The ones still available here, are a little expensive too.

*******

One thing that is nice about the smaller drives, is they will not
have the 4KB sectors on them. I was cursing the two drives I got
here, with the 4KB sectors and "512e" emulation, because they are
so slow when dealing with small files. Took twice as long as
usual to do a backup. They claim you can align partitions on 4KB
boundaries, and that is supposed to help, but I have multiple
partitions under WinXP, and I do not think there is any fix for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Format#512e

There is nothing "Advanced" about that format. it is just a nuisance.

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 09-Aug-12 06:14 AM
I managed to order a Seagate 160GB IDE 2MB ST3160215ACE on line for 49
Euros.
Today I received the drive and I have built it into the PC.
It was detected by the BIOS properly.

I did have a few surprises though...
The drive seemed already formatted.
Pagefile.sys was back on D: even before I put it back there manually.
I ran Hard Disk Sentinel test program, which also reads SMART data.
Performance and Health are excellent, but it also displays "Power on time
913 days"(!)
I got no information from the web shop that the drive was second hand...




--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 09-Aug-12 11:26 AM
Honesty is hard to find.

Brand new drives, can come formatted. So that part is not unusual.
But the power on hours would be set to zero at the factory, before
the drive shipped.

I do not know about refurbished drives though. For example, if
you got a warranty return from Seagate, do they reset the SMART
on those ? I do not know the answer to that. Check the label
and see if it says "Refurbished" on it somewhere.

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 09-Aug-12 01:40 PM
On the web shop it does not say anything about 'refurbished'. It even looks
new. Today I had them on the phone about this, and the guy told me it was a
refurbished drive indeed. He said I could have known because it says
'warranty 6 months' on the web shop. They offered me money back, but I
decided to keep it and get 5 euro's off because of the unclear conditions. I
do hope it lives longer than 6 months though...
The drive performs very fast, in fact much faster than the existent C:
drive.



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 09-Aug-12 04:38 PM
Enjoy your 512 byte physical/512 byte logical drive :-)

That's the "old fashioned" type.

I have about four 500GB drives here, SATA drives. I suspect,
based on behavior, they all have 4K sectors underneath.
Although one of them claims to be 512 byte physical/ 512 byte logical,
it has the same crappy behavior as the latest drives I got.
(Doesn't run "smooth" as it should. Transfer rate is like

The latest drives are 4096 byte physical/512 byte logical,
otherwise known as "512e" or 512 byte emulated drives. Seagate
does read/modify/write operations, so at the user level, it
still looks like a 512 byte sector that an older OS can use. But
such a scheme exacts a performance penalty.

Western Digital, I think they make 4096 physical/4096 logical,
which works seamless on Windows 7 with patch, but needs

I have been experimenting the last few days, trying to get the
4096/512 drive to behave better. And so far I have not succeeded.
I crudely aligned a FAT32 partition, using a change to reserved
sector count, and that did not do squat for me. Much to my surprise.
I am left to conclude, that the cache handling inside the hard
drive, is about as effective as SMARTDRV from DOS days - it
needs to dump the cache at regular intervals, causing a several
second delay until more files can be handled.

I have not cracked the performance puzzle yet.

The fact you have got a 512/512 drive, is something to be happy about.
I'd be doing a happy dance around the computer right now, if
that is what I had in front of me. Mainly because I could just
use it, and no more experiments would be required.

Paragon makes an alignment utility, but they want $30 for it.
My problem with that, is I am particular about who I give
my credit card details to. And I will not be dealing direct with
Paragon, because they are in Germany as far as I know. The last
time I tried to buy software from Germany, my card was declined,
and I got a phone call later from the credit card company. That
kinda takes the fun out of it. At the time that happened,
I actually ended up getting double billed, and it took forever
to resolve. So I'd just like to buy from someone who
uses a North American credit card processor.

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 10-Aug-12 12:59 PM
You're not sure? How can one verify this? I have a 500 GB drive too, but
this is an external USB drive. I believe there is a seagate inside because
model ID is ST3500820AS. I see here in HD Sentinel: Bytes Per Sector, 512
(amonst a load of other data).



Do you ever defragment? Because of moving the pagefile yesterday, I even
defragmented the page file with the utility of Russinovich.




I only have some USB-sticks formatted FAT32. All harddisks are formatted
NTFS. And another thing: I dont like dividing up my disks in smaller
partitions. I think this is countereffective as regards to use of space,
specially if you want to manage the partitions with a partition manager,
which itself takes even more of your space.



Afraid I havn't had dancing lessons...



I never had, nor ever will have a credit card. Most web shops in Netherlands
can also be paid (free!) through 'Ideal'.



I understand, that is lousy luck...


Now for another little problem: privacy. I tried to open up the broken
drives yesterday, in an attempt to phisically damage the plates with a
screwdriver. One of them could not be opened because the screws had
triangular holes in stead of Philips cross. The next best thing I could
think of was to drop the drives from 2 metres heigh on a concrete floor. I
assume this rendered them useless before putting them in the waste bin...



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
Paul replied to Linea Recta on 10-Aug-12 03:12 PM
When I say that, what I mean is, the drive is probably using a 4K sector
internally, but the *electronic* identification of the drive claims it
is a 512/512 drive. The addition of proper identification, was some
addition of information to the ATA spec. Later drives, properly
report size. Since I am still working on this as a "project" for myself,
here is the latest link I found with some discussion.

http://www.johannes-bauer.com/linux/wdc/?menuid=3

As for a utility, this is one I tried yesterday.

http://downloads.dell.com/FOLDER96706M/22/DELL_ADVANCED-FORMAT-HDD-DET_A00_R306204.exe

Inside there, is a file "DellAFDT.exe" which I extracted with 7ZIP.
It runs from the command prompt. Here is the output from my
(suspected dishonest) drive and my latest 4K drive. The 4K drive,
since it is more honestly reporting logical and physical characteristics,
the Dell utility reports it is not aligned properly. (If you were running
this in Windows 7, you might want to use a "Run as Administrator" cmd.exe window,
as I suspect the access of low level hardware details might need it.)

The first drive is 500GB, but behaves a bit choppy. Choppy behavior
can be caused by lots of spared-out sectors. So that is still a possibility.
Since all the identify words are zero, I expect the drive just is not designed
to report anything for the appropriate parameters. And since the Dell utility
has checked the params, and found them to indicate 512/512 byte per sector
drive, all partitions are claimed to be aligned. (Because partitions on "old"
drives, do not have an alignment issue.) But my suspicion is, this is a
512e drive (4096 physical 512 logical) and not really a true
old fashioned 512 byte drive.

Model:                                        ST3500418AS
Serial#:                                      9VMXTKA9
Advanced Format:                              No
Partition Alignment:                          Aligned
Partition 1:                              Aligned [G:]
Partition 2:                              Aligned [M:]
Partition 3:                              Aligned [Not assigned]
Partition 4:                              Aligned [N:]
Identify Data Word 106:                       0x0
Identify Data Word 117:                       0x0
Identify Data Word 118:                       0x0
Identify Data Word 209:                       0x0

This is my latest purchased drive. In Linux, this reports as 4096 physical
and 512 logical type drive. The Dell utility can easily tell that my CHS
prepared disk (partitioned in WinXP) is mis-aligned. But because the drive
emulated 512 byte sector operations (you write 512 bytes and it does not care),
this is all handled for you. it is just, if the partitions were better aligned,
then the cache behavior used to hide the details, would no longer be necessary.
But the cache is always running anyway, so the overhead involved (cache
management policy inside the drive) is still going to be there.

Model:                                        ST500DM002-1BD142
Serial#:                                      W2A95XHC
Advanced Format:                              Yes
Logical sectors per physical sector:          8
Logical sector size (in bytes):               512
Partition Alignment:                          Misaligned
Partition 1:                              Misaligned [C:]
Partition 2:                              Misaligned [D:]
Partition 3:                              Misaligned [E:]
Partition 4:                              Misaligned [W:]
Identify Data Word 106:                       0x6003
Identify Data Word 117:                       0x0
Identify Data Word 118:                       0x0
Identify Data Word 209:                       0x4000

What I do not know, and what I have been researching as hard as I can, is
whether *any* utility understands FAT32 well enough, to understand that
aligning the front of the entire partition is one thing, but aligning
the clusters inside is a separate issue. The two FATs in FAT32, take
variable storage area, which causes the clusters to start where ever they
fall. Some nice pictures here, if needed...

http://www.pjrc.com/tech/8051/ide/fat32.html

http://www.pjrc.com/tech/8051/ide/fat32_layout.gif

As you change the overall size of the partition, the size of the FATs
change at the same time. If you change from 16K clusters to 32K clusters,
the size of the fat changes by a factor of two as well. It takes four
bytes of storage in a FAT, to store a link to a cluster. Which is how
that space is determined. If you radically change the number of clusters,
the FATs also change in size (as the number of 4 byte pointers to store
has changed).

I am also going to need to research this for NTFS, but have not got there
yet. First, I need to understand how to fix the FAT32. And whether the
purchase of the Paragon tool, would actually ensure the clusters are
aligned to 4K or not. When I did this manually from Linux (backup and
restore, using mkfs.vfat command to custom set up FAT32 partition),
it did not seem to make a performance difference. And when I ran
partition boot sector was put in the wrong place, and I could not
boot from that FAT32 partition. I was able to test the partition,
for write performance, but when finished, it would not boot. Which
means I have more work to do. I'd probably need to leave the
Reserved Sectors field at the normal 32 value, and just resize the
partition a bit, to adjust the size of the FATs where they need to be.

This is what I tried in Linux, to make a fresh partition to
test with. 64 --> 32768 byte cluster. The R parameter is reserved
sectors at the front of the partition, and I changed that from the
normal 32 to 39 for my test. Using a hex editor, I checked the first
file on the new partition, and it was 4K aligned (32K cluster aligned
with 4K boundary). But when I did fixboot C: from WinXP, it seemed to
put the partition boot sector in the wrong place. So maybe it does not
like "R 39".

mkfs.vfat -a -F 32 -n WINXP -v -s 64 -R 39 /dev/sdc1

Paul
Linea Recta replied to Paul on 11-Aug-12 09:00 AM
Thanks very much for your detailed replies.



--
regards,

|\  /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os