Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

B

Borgholio

Chkdsk for Windows XP works fine for me under most circumstances. The only
problem I have with it is when I'm trying to locate bad sectors on a disk.
If I use Windows XP's chkdsk on a floppy disk that I know to be bad, it will
often say that the disk contains no errors. If I put that same disk into a
machine running Windows 98 and use Scandisk, it will usually find errors
that XP missed. Why does XP have a disk-scanning utility that is far less
thorough than it's predecessor? I find that Scandisk's surface scan is way
more reliable than Chkdsk.
 
S

Sandman

If you have a Western Digital, they have a free utility you can check the
disk with, and you can download it..
 
B

Borgholio

Sandman said:
If you have a Western Digital, they have a free utility you can check the
disk with, and you can download it..
Click to expand...


Yeah actually I have their program, and it works quite well. But I'm
interested in checking all drives...not just WD. I'm also interested in
checking my vast library of 3.5" floppy disks.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Does CHKDSK = ScanDisk? 1
What happened to Scandisk in XP???? 22
Chkdsk/Scandisk 105
CHKDSK inferior to ScanDisk? 4
scandisk won't run 3
Is there a better disk-maintenance utility than Chkdsk out there? 6
Chkdsk doesn't find bad sectors in unused space 2
Windows XP's chkdsk vs Windows 98's scandisk 14

Top