R
Rodney Chelius
Is there a scandisk for XP?
If not what is the correct way to run CHKDSK on the OS
hard drive?
Thank you.
If not what is the correct way to run CHKDSK on the OS
hard drive?
Thank you.
D
dglock
my computer>right click on the drive you want to
check.>choose properties>tools>error checking.
a window will popup, check the boxes and reboot.
don
check.>choose properties>tools>error checking.
a window will popup, check the boxes and reboot.
don
B
Bob Knowlden
One way:
from a command line window, or the RUN line,
chkdsk /f c:
(Assumes that c: is the boot drive.)
You'll be told that chkdsk can't be run on the boot drive from Windows, and
asked if you wish to run it on that drive at the next restart. Give it a
"y".
HTH
Bob Knowlden
Address may be altered. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
from a command line window, or the RUN line,
chkdsk /f c:
(Assumes that c: is the boot drive.)
You'll be told that chkdsk can't be run on the boot drive from Windows, and
asked if you wish to run it on that drive at the next restart. Give it a
"y".
HTH
Bob Knowlden
Address may be altered. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
WinXP does not have a program called "Scandisk," as this was a
Win9x/Me program. Instead, because WinXP is descended from the
WinNT/2K OS family, it has a command line utility called "Chkdsk,"
which performs much better, as it's not burdened with presenting a
pretty picture of moving blocks of color while it's working.
Start > Run > Cmd > Chkdsk.exe /? for the correct syntax and
available options.
Alternatively, double-click My Computer > right-click the desired
hard drive > Properties > Tools > Error-checking/Check Now. This will
run Chkdsk, normally on the next reboot.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
WinXP does not have a program called "Scandisk," as this was a
Win9x/Me program. Instead, because WinXP is descended from the
WinNT/2K OS family, it has a command line utility called "Chkdsk,"
which performs much better, as it's not burdened with presenting a
pretty picture of moving blocks of color while it's working.
Start > Run > Cmd > Chkdsk.exe /? for the correct syntax and
available options.
Alternatively, double-click My Computer > right-click the desired
hard drive > Properties > Tools > Error-checking/Check Now. This will
run Chkdsk, normally on the next reboot.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
J
JerryMouse
Rodney said:
If your disk is an NTFS disk, CHKDSK and its clones are redundant.
G
Guest
Thank you all for the help. All suggestions work famously.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:45:45 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
It also doesn't stop and tell you when it finds errors; it just
"fixes" them automatically. That IMO is a Very Bad Thing.
Errors are detected by variance between different data structure
information, one of which is presumably wrong. But which one? Even
if you guess right, the file may still be damaged.
Once you "fix" such situations, two things happen. Firstly, if the
discarded information was correct, you've lost it and can no longer
repair the file. Secondly, now that the damaged file no longer has
any data structure mismatches, it can no longer be detected as
damaged. It's like throwing the needle back in the haystack.
ChkDsk was the original crude, non-interactive file system checker
that shipped in MSDOS prior to DOS 6, and is still found in DOS 6 and
Win9x. If you run it in these later OSs, it will prompt you to use
Scandisk instead, describing Scandisk as "better".
The reason why NT is still stuck with ChkDsk is because it was first
created when DOS 5 (and thus ChkDsk) was the standard. Whereas Win9x
took the later DOS 6.xx Scandisk as the standard and built a new
Windows-based Scandisk on that basis, NT plodded on with ChkDsk.
Your basic choices are:
ChkDsk (doesn't fix anything, known to give spurious results on C
ChkDsk /F (automatically "fixes" without prompting first)
ChkDsk /R (similar to /F but also tests - and "fixes" - HD surface)
Your automatic checking of HD after bad exits (AutoChk) choices are:
Automatically "fix" without prompting, no pause to read log
Disable automatic checking via a manual registrty setting
No interactive mode, no "check without fix" after bad exits, and if
you want to know what the process did, you have to scratch in the
(sprawling) "events" log. Kill, bury, deny.
Contrast that crudeness with the detailed control of Scandisk.ini (the
control file for automatic checks after bad exits and ScanDisk when
run with the /Custom parameter), and tell me why ChkDsk is "better"?
When I do that on FATxx volumes, a very fast "scan" is done and no
errors are found, even when a subseaquent Scandisk finds multiple
errors to be present. When Windows starts again, no further check is
done and no prompt to restart Windows is given either - IOW I don't
think this method is setting up a scan to be done on next boot.
It looks just plain broken to me. Maybe it only works with NTFS?
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
It also doesn't stop and tell you when it finds errors; it just
"fixes" them automatically. That IMO is a Very Bad Thing.
Errors are detected by variance between different data structure
information, one of which is presumably wrong. But which one? Even
if you guess right, the file may still be damaged.
Once you "fix" such situations, two things happen. Firstly, if the
discarded information was correct, you've lost it and can no longer
repair the file. Secondly, now that the damaged file no longer has
any data structure mismatches, it can no longer be detected as
damaged. It's like throwing the needle back in the haystack.
ChkDsk was the original crude, non-interactive file system checker
that shipped in MSDOS prior to DOS 6, and is still found in DOS 6 and
Win9x. If you run it in these later OSs, it will prompt you to use
Scandisk instead, describing Scandisk as "better".
The reason why NT is still stuck with ChkDsk is because it was first
created when DOS 5 (and thus ChkDsk) was the standard. Whereas Win9x
took the later DOS 6.xx Scandisk as the standard and built a new
Windows-based Scandisk on that basis, NT plodded on with ChkDsk.
Your basic choices are:
ChkDsk (doesn't fix anything, known to give spurious results on C
ChkDsk /F (automatically "fixes" without prompting first)
ChkDsk /R (similar to /F but also tests - and "fixes" - HD surface)
Your automatic checking of HD after bad exits (AutoChk) choices are:
Automatically "fix" without prompting, no pause to read log
Disable automatic checking via a manual registrty setting
No interactive mode, no "check without fix" after bad exits, and if
you want to know what the process did, you have to scratch in the
(sprawling) "events" log. Kill, bury, deny.
Contrast that crudeness with the detailed control of Scandisk.ini (the
control file for automatic checks after bad exits and ScanDisk when
run with the /Custom parameter), and tell me why ChkDsk is "better"?
When I do that on FATxx volumes, a very fast "scan" is done and no
errors are found, even when a subseaquent Scandisk finds multiple
errors to be present. When Windows starts again, no further check is
done and no prompt to restart Windows is given either - IOW I don't
think this method is setting up a scan to be done on next boot.
It looks just plain broken to me. Maybe it only works with NTFS?
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
False - file system corruption happens. Look up Witty to see one
reason why - that's a malware that drills straight through NT and NTFS
to do destructive raw writes to disk.
If your disk is an NTFS disk, CHKDSK is all you have.
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
N
NobodyMan
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:45:45 -0600, "Bruce Chambers"
It also doesn't stop and tell you when it finds errors; it just
"fixes" them automatically. That IMO is a Very Bad Thing.
Errors are detected by variance between different data structure
information, one of which is presumably wrong. But which one? Even
if you guess right, the file may still be damaged.
Once you "fix" such situations, two things happen. Firstly, if the
discarded information was correct, you've lost it and can no longer
repair the file. Secondly, now that the damaged file no longer has
any data structure mismatches, it can no longer be detected as
damaged. It's like throwing the needle back in the haystack.
ChkDsk was the original crude, non-interactive file system checker
that shipped in MSDOS prior to DOS 6, and is still found in DOS 6 and
Win9x. If you run it in these later OSs, it will prompt you to use
Scandisk instead, describing Scandisk as "better".
The reason why NT is still stuck with ChkDsk is because it was first
created when DOS 5 (and thus ChkDsk) was the standard. Whereas Win9x
took the later DOS 6.xx Scandisk as the standard and built a new
Windows-based Scandisk on that basis, NT plodded on with ChkDsk.
Your basic choices are:
ChkDsk (doesn't fix anything, known to give spurious results on C
ChkDsk /F (automatically "fixes" without prompting first)
ChkDsk /R (similar to /F but also tests - and "fixes" - HD surface)
Your automatic checking of HD after bad exits (AutoChk) choices are:
Automatically "fix" without prompting, no pause to read log
Disable automatic checking via a manual registrty setting
No interactive mode, no "check without fix" after bad exits, and if
you want to know what the process did, you have to scratch in the
(sprawling) "events" log. Kill, bury, deny.
Contrast that crudeness with the detailed control of Scandisk.ini (the
control file for automatic checks after bad exits and ScanDisk when
run with the /Custom parameter), and tell me why ChkDsk is "better"?
When I do that on FATxx volumes, a very fast "scan" is done and no
errors are found, even when a subseaquent Scandisk finds multiple
errors to be present. When Windows starts again, no further check is
done and no prompt to restart Windows is given either - IOW I don't
think this method is setting up a scan to be done on next boot.
It looks just plain broken to me. Maybe it only works with NTFS?
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
OK, cquirkenew, I realize you hate chkdsk and seem to love Scandisk.
Whatever. I do have a question though: What is a Win9X (an obsolete
and soon to be unsupported MS product line) MVP doing in an XP group
handing out advice?
Chkdsk is time tested and proven. It may be "crude" in that it
doesn't have a pretty graphical interface. OK, fine, whatever.
However, it has existed in the NT architecture since day one,
including Server OSs, and works fine for it's purpose.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
No; I don't like irreversable auto-utilities that give you no chance
to back out from ill-advised "fixes". I don't particularly care
whether they are called Scandisk, ChkDsk, NDD or whatever, and it's
not about candy graphics. It's about user control and data safety.
Same as a non-MVP reading an XP group and handing out advice.
Actually, I lurk more than I post, so I can learn more about XP
No, it's not fine, and as I say, it's not a matter of being called
ChkDsk or having a pretty 'face.
So tell me; one moment old things are Bad because they are "obsolete",
and the next they are Good because they are time tested and proven?
Just how much of FAT12/16-era ChkDsk code remains unchanged in NT's
NTFS-capable ChkDsk? If there are data-corrupting bugs, they will be
in the unseen engine of the thing, not the 'face, and it should be
quite possible to drop these guts into the better 'face that Scandisk
uses. I see you've chosen to stay clear of the main points I raised.
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
N
NobodyMan
Same as a non-MVP reading an XP group and handing out advice.
Actually, I lurk more than I post, so I can learn more about XP
I admit I'm not an "MVP." Big deal. I do have years of practical
experience in MS networking environments, working in all aspects -
help desk, computer support/repair, Server farm maintennance, asst LAN
admin, and various installations (including mouting punch-downs and
running cable - a job I hope to never do again).
My gripe is that you bother to put MVP in your post. If you aren't an
MVP in the OS this group discusses, it's out of place IMHO.
I'm checking out of this discussion. It has moved away from chkdsk.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
Sorry, my bad; you misunderstood what I meant by that. I was reading
and posting for years before being an MVP, and continue to do so in
newsgroups outside the scope of what I'm MVP in. I have one name
string that's applied wherever I post, so that's why you see "MVP 9x"
in my XP newsgroup posts - even tho it's not relevant there.
I certainly didn't want to imply non-MVPs had any less right or reason
to post advice in newsgroups - quite the opposite; MVPs, non-MVPs and
MVPs-in-unrelated-areas all have the same rights. Specifically, just
because I'm not an XP MVP doesn't mean I shouldn't post here.
IKWYM there - I "render unto Caeser" on that one too ;-)
As I explained, there's one setting in my Free Agent that determines
my identity, and it's applied everywhere I post (usenet and ms
services, Win9x, XP and virus discussion groups. I don't specifically
wave it around here or anywhere else, it's just part of the ID - and
if I didn't diclose it, someone would complain about that too, I guess
Well, this post certainly has!
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
K
Kelly
My gripe is that you bother to put MVP in your post. If you aren't an
In a way; however, you seem to be very perceptive, thus...will disallow or
at least measure what is posted by a Win98 MVP. Doesn't warrant his info
any less than any other, though. Would be just the same my dropping into a
Win98 group with my sig attached.
)
In a way; however, you seem to be very perceptive, thus...will disallow or
at least measure what is posted by a Win98 MVP. Doesn't warrant his info
any less than any other, though. Would be just the same my dropping into a
Win98 group with my sig attached.
)
T
Tom
Kelly said:Would be just the same my dropping into a
Win98 group with my sig attached.
Excellent logic!