Why won't my Scan disk work anymore, it gets halfway and
freezes, consequently it won't let me defrag.

Probably you have programs running in background.
close all things running in system tray,or start up in safe mode and use
scandisk

Actually Chkdsk, which is the replacement for Scandisk in the Windows XP
operating systems.

"Brian Clegg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Probably you have programs running in background.
> close all things running in system tray,or start up in safe mode and use
> scandisk
>
>

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:59:51 -0700, "Greg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Why won't my Scan disk work anymore, it gets halfway and
>freezes, consequently it won't let me defrag.

The most significant reason why Scandisk, ChkDsk or other disk
maintenance tools freeze, is a dying area of the HD surface that bogs
the process down in a retry loop that goes on forever.

That can happen with any disk access, but is especially likely with
tools that look at every occupied part of the subtree, especially if
these go on to read every sector on the disk (as Scandisk surface
scan, ChkDsk /R, or third-party equivalents do).



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, does not go away (PKD)
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Greg wrote:
> Why won't my Scan disk work anymore, it gets halfway and
> freezes, consequently it won't let me defrag.

1) There is no ScanDisk in XP. XP has CheckDisk which is run either from
the command prompt or by right clicking on a drive, selecting properties and
then the maintenance tab.

2) CheckDisk doesn't "defrag" it checks your disk for errors. What are
you having problems with - CheckDisk or the defragmenting tool?

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:00:23 -0400, "Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Actually Chkdsk, which is the replacement for Scandisk in the Windows XP
>operating systems.

ChkDsk isn't a replacement, it's a throwback. It pre-dates DOS 6, and
if you run it in Win9x, the response you get (basically "use Scandisk,
it sucks less") says it all. Unfortunately, NT peeled off as a new OS
before DOS 6 and took the darkness of older DOS forward as the new
standard. A butt-kicking is looong overdue there.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:18:40 +0100, "Miss Perspicacia Tick"
>Greg wrote:

>> Why won't my Scan disk work anymore, it gets halfway and
>> freezes, consequently it won't let me defrag.

>2) CheckDisk doesn't "defrag" it checks your disk for errors. What are
>you having problems with - CheckDisk or the defragmenting tool?

I think what Greg means is that because file system errors are not
corrected, Defrag refuses to defrag.

If dying HD surface kills ChkDsk (or simply keeps it from moving by
staying in a retry loop so long it's assumed dead) then there may be
as-yet-un-"fixed" errors in the file system that upset Defrag.

And just as well, too! A defrag in a context that kills ChkDsk is one
of the worst ideas I've heard since dung-flavored toothpaste.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

You missed my point, which is this: Windows XP does not include Scandisk,
but uses Chkdsk instead. My intent was to help prevent others from searching
for something that is not there. Next time I will use a different adjective.


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:00:23 -0400, "Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Actually Chkdsk, which is the replacement for Scandisk in the Windows XP
> >operating systems.
>
> ChkDsk isn't a replacement, it's a throwback. It pre-dates DOS 6, and
> if you run it in Win9x, the response you get (basically "use Scandisk,
> it sucks less") says it all. Unfortunately, NT peeled off as a new OS
> before DOS 6 and took the darkness of older DOS forward as the new
> standard. A butt-kicking is looong overdue there.
>
>
>
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:59:26 -0400, "Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You missed my point, which is this: Windows XP does not include Scandisk,
>but uses Chkdsk instead.

I got that point, but the phrasing implied this was "progress".

It is not, because:
- there's no longer any control of what aurto-checking does
- there's no interactive mode whatsoever
- you can't believe a "read-only" check of C: as it false-positives
- but you are forced to trust it to irreversably "fix"
- even the vestigial diskette-bound Undo has been lost
- no fine-grained progress indicator in ChkDsk /r to spot latency
- result logging is seriously buried and hard to find

It's not just that ChkDsk is ugly-looking; I have no problem with ugly
software that works well. It's that it is a materially worse tool
that denies the user any kind of control, which IMO makes it unfit for
use as a repairer (and there's no other NTFS repairer... go figure).



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Whatever.

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:59:26 -0400, "Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >You missed my point, which is this: Windows XP does not include Scandisk,
> >but uses Chkdsk instead.
>
> I got that point, but the phrasing implied this was "progress".
>
> It is not, because:
> - there's no longer any control of what aurto-checking does
> - there's no interactive mode whatsoever
> - you can't believe a "read-only" check of C: as it false-positives
> - but you are forced to trust it to irreversably "fix"
> - even the vestigial diskette-bound Undo has been lost
> - no fine-grained progress indicator in ChkDsk /r to spot latency
> - result logging is seriously buried and hard to find
>
> It's not just that ChkDsk is ugly-looking; I have no problem with ugly
> software that works well. It's that it is a materially worse tool
> that denies the user any kind of control, which IMO makes it unfit for
> use as a repairer (and there's no other NTFS repairer... go figure).
>
>
>
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -