"Parameter is incorrect" (continued from another thread)

[Jeff Heikkinen]

I *WAS* having what seemed to be problems with my burner, but they're
fixed. I think it was a case of crap burning software; I switched to
Nero and now everything's hunky dory as far as the burner goes.

However, I *still* can't read from the hard drive on the same channel.
The error message I now get when I click on it in Explorer is "E:\ is
not accessible. The parameter is incorrect." I have no idea what
parameter it's talking about - that's the entire message.

However, I ONLY have this problem in Windows XP. The same computer
dual-boots with Windows 98, and when I boot into 98 I can see the drive
just fine!

It doesn't seem to matter whether the drive in question is the master or
the slave. I've only tried it on the secondary channel. I've tried it
without the burner at all, jumpered to both Master and Cable Select, and
it doesn't seem to make a difference. I have replaced the IDE cable and
that didn't make a difference either.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

See what FindPart thinks of it.

 

[Bob]

I *WAS* having what seemed to be problems with my burner, but they're
fixed. I think it was a case of crap burning software; I switched to
Nero and now everything's hunky dory as far as the burner goes.

However, I *still* can't read from the hard drive on the same channel.
The error message I now get when I click on it in Explorer is "E:\ is
not accessible. The parameter is incorrect." I have no idea what
parameter it's talking about - that's the entire message.

However, I ONLY have this problem in Windows XP. The same computer
dual-boots with Windows 98, and when I boot into 98 I can see the drive
just fine!

It doesn't seem to matter whether the drive in question is the master or
the slave. I've only tried it on the secondary channel. I've tried it
without the burner at all, jumpered to both Master and Cable Select, and
it doesn't seem to make a difference. I have replaced the IDE cable and
that didn't make a difference either.

Lemme guess - it's a Mitsumi burner.

I had a similar problem with a Mitsumi CD-RW a few years back. I was
told by Mitsumi tech support that I can only have the CD-RW on the
channel. That was with NT4. When I changed to Win2K I could put a ZIP
drive on the channel with the CD-RW as Master.

I think you have found what the problem is - buggy drivers. That's
what it was for my NT4 setup.

Please tell us the make and model of that burner so we can avoid it.


--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

 

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Bob, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Lemme guess - it's a Mitsumi burner.

No, the brand name is IO Magic. It shows up as a generic in Windows,
though. Nevertheless I might try ditching its drivers and/or updating
its firmware later on.

I had a similar problem with a Mitsumi CD-RW a few years back. I was
told by Mitsumi tech support that I can only have the CD-RW on the
channel.

That would royally suck for me.

The thing is, though, in my case the two peacefully co-existed for a
long time - about half a year; if this were the problem I'd expect them
to have never worked together. So, while I've seen stranger things, I
don't suspect a driver issue.

 

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Jeff Heikkinen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

I *WAS* having what seemed to be problems with my burner, but they're
fixed. I think it was a case of crap burning software; I switched to
Nero and now everything's hunky dory as far as the burner goes.

However, I *still* can't read from the hard drive on the same channel.
The error message I now get when I click on it in Explorer is "E:\ is
not accessible. The parameter is incorrect." I have no idea what
parameter it's talking about - that's the entire message.

However, I ONLY have this problem in Windows XP. The same computer
dual-boots with Windows 98, and when I boot into 98 I can see the drive
just fine!

It doesn't seem to matter whether the drive in question is the master or
the slave. I've only tried it on the secondary channel. I've tried it
without the burner at all, jumpered to both Master and Cable Select, and
it doesn't seem to make a difference. I have replaced the IDE cable and
that didn't make a difference either.

UPDATE:

I ran chkdsk on the drive in question and it reported that the FAT was
corrupted. That's the sort of thing, as I understand it, that Scandisk
sometimes can fix, so I ran it. Scandisk said it found errors and fixed
them all, but I still can't read from that drive in Windows XP (and
still can in Win 98 and DOS), getting the same error message as before.

What else can I do about a corrupt FAT? Is it time to low-level format?

 

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Folkert Rienstra, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

See what FindPart thinks of it.

If that's the program at the top of
http://www.partitionsupport.com/utilities.htm, I found it but I haven't
the faintest idea how to use it, even after reading the readme file.

 

[Bob]

That would royally suck for me.

The thing is, though, in my case the two peacefully co-existed for a
long time - about half a year; if this were the problem I'd expect them
to have never worked together. So, while I've seen stranger things, I
don't suspect a driver issue.

I do.

My situation was the reverse of yours. My older version of Windows NT4
was incompatible with the Mitsumi drivers, whereas the newer version
Win2K was compatible. Your older version of Win98 is compatible
whereas your newer version of XP is not compatible.

Did you check the HCL?


--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

 

[Bob]

What else can I do about a corrupt FAT? Is it time to low-level format?

I would get rid of the drive.


--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

 

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Folkert Rienstra, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

See what FindPart thinks of it.

Here's the output, but even after a look at the Partition Notes page on
their site I can't make heads or tails of most of it. Any ideas?

Disk: 3 Cylinders: 1240 Heads: 255 Sectors: 63 MB: 9727

-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 - 0C 63 19920537 9726 0 1 1 1239 254 63 BU OK

-----FAT CHS -Size Cl --Root -Good -Rep. Maybe --Bad YYMMDD DataMB
0 1 33 9723 8# 2# 9723 0 0 0 001215 3068

Partitions according to partition tables on third harddisk:

-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 1*0C 63 19920537 9726 0 1 1 1239*254 63 NB OK

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Folkert Rienstra, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Here's the output, but even after a look at the Partition Notes page on
their site I can't make heads or tails of most of it. Any ideas?

Disk: 3 Cylinders: 1240 Heads: 255 Sectors: 63 MB: 9727

-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 - 0C 63 19920537 9726 0 1 1 1239 254 63 BU OK

-----FAT CHS -Size Cl --Root -Good -Rep. Maybe --Bad YYMMDD DataMB
0 1 33 9723 8# 2# 9723 0 0 0 001215 3068

Partitions according to partition tables on third harddisk:

-PCyl N ID -----Rel -----Num ---MB -Start CHS- --End CHS-- BS CHS
0 1*0C 63 19920537 9726 0 1 1 1239*254 63 NB OK

Findpart reports the backup (BU) bootsector (BS) in the
first paragraph and reports a nota bene (NB) in the third.

Appears like the original bootsector is missing. It's possible that some
OSes make do with the backup bootsector without complaints and that
others play blindman and act like the drive hasn't been formatted at all.

XP apparently reacts with that extremely obvious (not!) "Parameter is incorrect".

 

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Folkert Rienstra, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Findpart reports the backup (BU) bootsector (BS) in the
first paragraph and reports a nota bene (NB) in the third.

Appears like the original bootsector is missing. It's possible that some
OSes make do with the backup bootsector without complaints and that
others play blindman and act like the drive hasn't been formatted at all.

XP apparently reacts with that extremely obvious (not!) "Parameter is incorrect".

Okay, so pretty much what I'd figured from the other troubleshooting I
did yesterday. So what do I *do* about it?

I don't need the data on the drive - I already copied it over while I
was running an OS that could read it. So formatting, FDISKing etc are
all options. I've got one vote for getting rid of the drive entirely -
any other suggestions? Right now I won't be able to afford to replace
it for a little while, but that's not a huge deal.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Folkert Rienstra, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...


Okay, so pretty much what I'd figured from the other troubleshooting I
did yesterday.

If you mean to say that it is a software problem, sure.

So what do I *do* about it?

Copying the backup bootsector (bootsector+6=69) to the bootsector block ad-
dress (63) using a sector editor. Personally I use Hex Workshop in disk mode.

I don't need the data on the drive - I already copied it over while I was run
ning an OS that could read it. So formatting, FDISKing etc are all options.

Formatting preferably. If that doesn't solve it (FindPart check), then Fdisk.

I've got one vote for getting rid of the drive entirely -
any other suggestions?

Check it with Bart's Disktool. www.nu2.nu/utilities

You can also download Alex Mina's SMARTview
It has a sector editor build-in too.
http://www.upsystems.com.ua/support/alexmina