Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

Forum Windows XP : General Discussion Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

Video

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

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.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

If you have a Western Digital, they have a free utility you can check the
disk with, and you can download it..
"Borgholio" <borgholio@storymind.com> wrote in message
news:uOTSWasuEHA.1288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> 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.

Reply to Sandman

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Sandman wrote:
> If you have a Western Digital, they have a free utility you can check the
> disk with, and you can download it..
> "Borgholio" <borgholio@storymind.com> wrote in message
> news:uOTSWasuEHA.1288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>>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.
>
>
>

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.

Reply to Anonymous

Ask the community Add a reply

Related content

See all topics related to "Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?"

Tom's Hardware > Forum > Windows XP > General Discussion > Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 1963 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 0.171 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel

Ads

Latest best answer

Microsoft Updates - In Triplicate !

By Hawkeye22, 1 day ago:

They won't show up in add/remove programs because they were superceded by a different...

Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

Forum Windows XP : General Discussion Why is Chkdsk less reliable than Scandisk?

General Discussion

Configuration & Customization

Drivers

Security

Video

Please mind