Unable to run disk check

[mark]

My PC has developed numerous errors, I need to run check disk but I just
can't. When I right click my drive > tools then check disk I get a prompt
"the disk check utility could not be performed because it needs exclusive
access to some windows files, do you want to run disk check after the next
restart"...or something similar. I click OK and reboot.

However, Disk Check just does not run & windows XP boots up like normal.
I've also tried doing dskchk /f in command prompt and get the same message.
'dskchk' on it's own will run but obviously without the '/f' it won't fix
any errors.

How exactly am I supposed to run disk check?

 

[R. McCarty]

Boot to your Windows XP disk, and take the Recovery Console
option. After logging in, you can run Chkdsk with whatever qualifiers
you want.

 

[mark]

Boot to your Windows XP disk, and take the Recovery Console
option. After logging in, you can run Chkdsk with whatever qualifiers
you want.

I sorted it. Apparently it was Zone Alarm 5 that was causing all the
problems, once I uninstalled it I ran fine

 

[Guest]

I sorted it. Apparently it was Zone Alarm 5 that was causing all the
problems, once I uninstalled it I ran fine

For the very short time that Zone Alarm 5 was installed on my system, it
caused me nothing but trouble. In my opinion, with an up to date Windows XP
Professional running SP2, the only additional security program you need is a
standalone antivirus program (I use Trend Micro 2005). You don't need a
third party firewall. Windows Firewall (the version that comes with SP2) is
more than adequate if you regularly use the right antivirus program to go
with it, i.e. one that checks for worms and trojans. Lately I have also
used the Microsoft beta antispyware program, which has run seamlessly in the
background and has given me no problems so far. When it comes to most third
party utilities, including security suites, less is almost always better than
more.

 

[Marko]

you are not entirely right about this

the XP firewall does not block outgoing traffic, zonealarm and other
third party firewalls do and therefore act as a first warning for all
adware and some viruses

:




For the very short time that Zone Alarm 5 was installed on my system, it
caused me nothing but trouble. In my opinion, with an up to date Windows XP
Professional running SP2, the only additional security program you need is a
standalone antivirus program (I use Trend Micro 2005). You don't need a
third party firewall. Windows Firewall (the version that comes with SP2) is
more than adequate if you regularly use the right antivirus program to go
with it, i.e. one that checks for worms and trojans. Lately I have also
used the Microsoft beta antispyware program, which has run seamlessly in the
background and has given me no problems so far. When it comes to most third
party utilities, including security suites, less is almost always better than
more.

--
Marko Jotic
"Common sense is anything but common".
From the notebooks of Lazarus Long. Robert A. Heinlein.
Handmade knives, antique designs, exotic materials at
http://www.knifeforging.com/

 

[Guest]

you are not entirely right about this

the XP firewall does not block outgoing traffic, zonealarm and other
third party firewalls do and therefore act as a first warning for all
adware and some viruses

True. If you allow a worm, a trojan, adware, or spyware on your machine and
it then "phones home," the Windows Firewall will not prevent the connection.
My solution to the problem, however, is to use software other than a
firewall to prevent this crud from getting on my machine in the first place.
This is what a good antivirus program, like Trend Micro, does -- and what
none of these third party firewalls can do. I'm also running the Microsoft
beta antispyware program, which performs the same function with respect to
adware and spyware.

Keeping Windows XP up to date, running Windows Firewall, running a good
standalone antivirus program, and using common sense when surfing the web,
downloading files, or opening attachments to e-mails is all anyone needs to
do to keep their system both fast and secure. If you do these things, you
don't need a third party firewall.

Moreover, you also avoid the side effects, such as a slight loss in
performance and connection speeds, or even conflicts with your other
software. In this regard, I have read many stories about people who have had
problems after installing "internet security suites" -- problems that didn't
exist before. I have learned -- mostly the hard way -- that when it comes to
optimizing Windows XP performance and security, less is almost always more.
About the only third party utilities I use are a single standalone antivirus
program, Microsoft's antispyware beta program, and Diskeeper. Windows XP
loves this. Try it and see.

 

[Marko]

:




True. If you allow a worm, a trojan, adware, or spyware on your machine and
it then "phones home," the Windows Firewall will not prevent the connection.
My solution to the problem, however, is to use software other than a
firewall to prevent this crud from getting on my machine in the first place.
This is what a good antivirus program, like Trend Micro, does -- and what
none of these third party firewalls can do. I'm also running the Microsoft
beta antispyware program, which performs the same function with respect to
adware and spyware.

I mentioned "some viruses" as an additional fact, I don't disagree with
the anti virus, I disagree with XP firewall being enough, zonealarm has
blocked for me many programs that spyware removers do not block (windows
media player for example), it offers much finer control of your system
than XP alone

Keeping Windows XP up to date, running Windows Firewall, running a good
standalone antivirus program, and using common sense when surfing the web,
downloading files, or opening attachments to e-mails is all anyone needs to
do to keep their system both fast and secure. If you do these things, you
don't need a third party firewall.

the basics, but then most people don't follow them, sigh...

you forgot to mention unbinding windows networking and file and print
sharing on your tcp/ip, and disabling lmhosts lookup and netbios over
tcp/ip, if you have a small network use netbeuie, keeps your network
separate, if you are on a domain this discussion doesn't apply.

of course a cheap external router is far more efficient than XP or third
party software as a firewall for incoming traffic

Moreover, you also avoid the side effects, such as a slight loss in
performance and connection speeds, or even conflicts with your other
software. In this regard, I have read many stories about people who have had
problems after installing "internet security suites" -- problems that didn't
exist before. I have learned -- mostly the hard way -- that when it comes to
optimizing Windows XP performance and security, less is almost always more.
About the only third party utilities I use are a single standalone antivirus
program, Microsoft's antispyware beta program, and Diskeeper. Windows XP
loves this. Try it and see.

you like diskeeper? I investigated NTFS disk utilities a couple of years
ago and found them useless (they didn't defragment any more than W2k did
on its own, and, no performance gain (Then))

--
Marko Jotic
"Common sense is anything but common".
From the notebooks of Lazarus Long. Robert A. Heinlein.
Handmade knives, antique designs, exotic materials at
http://www.knifeforging.com/

 

[Guest]

I mentioned "some viruses" as an additional fact, I don't disagree with
the anti virus, I disagree with XP firewall being enough, zonealarm has
blocked for me many programs that spyware removers do not block (windows
media player for example), it offers much finer control of your system
than XP alone.

I have no problem with people using third party firewalls if they think they
need the additional ability to block outgoing communications. Speaking for
myself, I don't need this additional functionality, and I don't want to have
to deal with all of the negative side effects of using a third party
firewall. I have experienced some of these negative side effects myself,
and have read about many problems experienced by others. I have never had a
problem with malware while using a combination of the Windows Firewall and a
good standalone antivirus program.

you forgot to mention unbinding windows networking and file and print
sharing on your tcp/ip, and disabling lmhosts lookup and netbios over
tcp/ip, if you have a small network use netbeuie, keeps your network
separate, if you are on a domain this discussion doesn't apply.

These are all good suggestions as well. I have done all of them on my own
machine (I don't have a small network, so the last suggestion doesn't apply
to me).

[...]

you like diskeeper? I investigated NTFS disk utilities a couple of years
ago and found them useless (they didn't defragment any more than W2k did
on its own, and, no performance gain (Then))

To be honest, I go back and forth on Diskeeper (and PerfectDisk, which I
have also used), as against using the built-in defragmenter. In the end, the
only reason I use Diskeeper is because of the "Set it and Forget It"
function. I don't notice any transparent performance gain using either
program over the built-in defragmenter For that matter, the same observation
applies to virtually every single third party "performance" or "optimizing"
utility I have ever tried. As I think I said before, my experience is that
when it comes to these programs, less is almost always more.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

True. If you allow a worm, a trojan, adware, or spyware on
your
machine and it then "phones home," the Windows Firewall will
not
prevent the connection. My solution to the problem, however, is
to
use software other than a firewall to prevent this crud from
getting
on my machine in the first place. This is what a good antivirus
program, like Trend Micro, does -- and what none of these third
party
firewalls can do. I'm also running the Microsoft beta
antispyware
program, which performs the same function with respect to
adware and
spyware.

I agree with all of the above.

Keeping Windows XP up to date, running Windows Firewall,
running a
good standalone antivirus program, and using common sense when
surfing the web, downloading files, or opening attachments to
e-mails
is all anyone needs to do to keep their system both fast and
secure.
If you do these things, you don't need a third party firewall.

But here I don't agree at all. Phrases like "all anyone needs to
do" and "If you do these things" fail because none of us is
perfect and because none of the software you want to depend on is
perfect either.

Much better than relying on any software to work perfectly or
assuming that you will never fail to use "common sense" is having
a second string to your bow. And in this case, the second string
is a third-party firewall. Providing a second line of defense is
prudent, and that's why I agree with Marko that it's better to
use a third-party firewall instead.

That's especially true since many of these third-party firewalls
are completely free and have no downside to using them.

Moreover, you also avoid the side effects, such as a slight
loss in
performance and connection speeds,

Doesn't exist, in my experience--at least nothing noticable.

or even conflicts with your other
software.

Doesn't exist at all.

In this regard, I have read many stories about people who
have had problems after installing "internet security
suites" --
problems that didn't exist before.

I'm not big on most "internet security suites" either. But
that's not what's under discussion here. We're talking about
third-party firewalls exclusively. I personally use, and
recommend the free version of ZoneAlarm.

I have learned -- mostly the hard
way -- that when it comes to optimizing Windows XP performance
and
security, less is almost always more.

I disagree completely. You can't paint all third-party products
with the same brush. Some is great, some is good, some is OK, and
some is terrible. You should address the specifics of each
product, not third-party products in general.

About the only third party
utilities I use are a single standalone antivirus program,
Microsoft's antispyware beta program, and Diskeeper.

Your choice. That doesn't mean yours are the best choices. I for
example prefer other anti-spyware products, and I prefer Perfect
Disk to Diskkeeper. That's not to insist that my choices are
better than yours, but to point out that any individual's choices
aren't necessarily best for everyone.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


Windows XP

 

[Guest]

But here I don't agree at all. Phrases like "all anyone needs to
do" and "If you do these things" fail because none of us is
perfect and because none of the software you want to depend on is
perfect either.

Let me put it this way, then. When I have done all of the things I listed
above, I have had a fast, secure machine with no problems whatsoever related
to performance or security. I will grant you that no software is perfect,
but so far this approach has been more than good enough -- and I have used
it for at least the last nine months. By contrast, when I have used third
party firewalls in the past -- including especially Zone Alarm (or, to be
both more precise and more fair, the Zone Alarm Security Suite) -- I have
sometimes had problems (including some really odd stuff, like the inability
to run chkdsk during bootup) that I could fix only by uninstalling the
firewall. In sum, when good enough is good enough, well, it's good enough
and you don't need the extra bells and whistles -- and sometimes the
headaches -- that come with third party software.

Much better than relying on any software to work perfectly or
assuming that you will never fail to use "common sense" is having
a second string to your bow. And in this case, the second string
is a third-party firewall. Providing a second line of defense is
prudent, and that's why I agree with Marko that it's better to
use a third-party firewall instead.

I agree in part. I am very aggressive about runing manual virus and other
crudware scans on a regular basis, always running virus scans in real time,
and keeping my Windows and antivirus software up to date. I also check the
Event Viewer regularly (at least once a day), and I check Task Manager
whenever anything seems to be even sligtly out of the ordinary, which is
virtually never on my machine. I stay educated on the latest security
threats and how to prevent them from materializing on my machine. I know how
to use msconfig to make sure that no rogue programs are running when Windows
starts. Etc. Etc. It isn't exactly like I don't have umpteen other
defenses to crudware besides a third party firewall. And most of all, I
don't do any of the things that cause crudware to be installed on my machine
in the first place. An ounce of prevention here is worth a pound of cure,
not to mention dozens of dollars in third party security software.

Doesn't exist, in my experience--at least nothing noticable.

I have, although most of the problems are minor. For example, Norton
Firewall would take an extra 15-30 seconds to load at startup -- longer than
that if an update was available from Symantec. Zone Alarm would constantly
interrupt me for permission to allow perfectly legitimate programs to access
the Internet. And so on. The Trend Micro firewall was actually the best of
the three that I know the most about -- it was almost as seamless as the
Windows firewall. In each of these cases, I avoided crudware with these
programs, but I also avoided crudware without them -- but without them, I
also didn't experience any of the other delays and occasional problems
related to their presence on my machine.

Doesn't exist at all.

I hereby invoke the Zone Alarm Security Suite exception. That thing
messed up my machine so bad that I ended up reinstalling Windows. I have
also had minor problems with Norton's firewall.

I'm not big on most "internet security suites" either. But
that's not what's under discussion here. We're talking about
third-party firewalls exclusively. I personally use, and
recommend the free version of ZoneAlarm.

Well, okay. It is a fact that the ZoneAlarm firewall does more things than
the basic Windows Firewall. The question in my mind is whether these
additional things are necessary. Certainly they will be necessary for people
who don't do the other things I mentioned above. I am not nearly so sure
that they are necessary for people who do the things that I do.

I disagree completely. You can't paint all third-party products
with the same brush. Some is great, some is good, some is OK, and
some is terrible. You should address the specifics of each
product, not third-party products in general.

Some products are better than others, but again I have used most of them
extensively for years. I'm speaking from my own first-hand experience. I
have tried all of the utility suites, as well as other utilities, registry
tweaks, registry cleaners/optimizers, and so on in an attempt to get every
last drop of performance out of my machine. I never noticed any transparent
improvement in performance, and many times I noticed the exact opposite (e.g.
Systemworks).

Your choice. That doesn't mean yours are the best choices. I for
example prefer other anti-spyware products, and I prefer Perfect
Disk to Diskkeeper. That's not to insist that my choices are
better than yours, but to point out that any individual's choices
aren't necessarily best for everyone.

I really like both defraggers, and go back and forth on which one I prefer.
As I mentioned above, the only reasons I slightly prefer Diskeeper is the
Set it and Forget it feature, as well as the fact that it is the
full-featured version of the built-in defragger that Microsoft itself
selected for its operating system. I would think that PerfectDisk would
actually be a better choice for people who regularly work with huge files,
but that's not me.

Ken