B
Borgholio
When checking a hard disk for bad sectors, Chkdsk takes far less time than
Scandisk does. Why is this? Is Chkdsk less thorough than Scandisk?
Scandisk does. Why is this? Is Chkdsk less thorough than Scandisk?
mickiebon said:i don't know but i hate XP, i would rather go back to 98. you had more
control over your computer back then, now everything is set up for automatic.
i drive a stick not an automatic and that is by choice, i like my pc the
same.
when i try to run my CHKDSK right now all i get is "The type of file system
is NTFS. WARNING F parameter not specified. Running CHKDSK in read-only
mode."
:
-----Original Message-----
i would rather go back to 98.
mickiebon said:i don't know but i hate XP, i would rather go back to 98. you had more
control over your computer back then, now everything is set up for
automatic.
i drive a stick not an automatic and that is by choice, i like my pc the
same.
when i try to run my CHKDSK right now all i get is "The type of file
system
is NTFS. WARNING F parameter not specified. Running CHKDSK in read-only
mode."
I haven't noticed any lack of control but why not just
install 98 instead of hating XP?
Borgholio said:When checking a hard disk for bad sectors, Chkdsk takes far less time than
Scandisk does. Why is this? Is Chkdsk less thorough than Scandisk?
Alex said:Borgholio wrote:
Briefly yes. But Scandisk only works on FAT 32, where it does more
thorough checking, including the count of free space (and it takes time
to assess what that should be) - one of the common faults to develop on
a FAT 32 partition if there is a bad shut down
David said:It doesn't need it. It checks it's own consistancy as it works and
maintains data to fix it's structures at the moment they become wonky.
You never need to run chkdsk. If it needs or might need it it will run
without your help.
This occurs if it detects a bad sector or if XP crashed (as it can't be
sure what has happened).
Remember both scandisk and chkdsk will quite cheerfully throw away all
your data to make sure the file system is correct. But scandisk will ask
if it's ok, chkdsk won't. You should not run chkdsk without doing a
backup of your data.
Borgholio said:I see, so an inaccurate report of free space is not an issue with NTFS? If
I wanted to do a thorough scan with Windows XP, what would be a good
third-party program that could do this?
Alex said:Borgholio wrote:
FAT32 has a value maintained in its initial extra data on how much free
space is available - that speeds up a lot of operations that need to
know. But it easily fails to get updated; a major reason for queries
about 'Explorer says I have only 100 MB free when adding up all files,
including hidden says I have 5 GB'. NTFS does not have this value; and
CHKDSK does not (subject to correction) check on it in FAT 32
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.