G
Guest
Guest
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.
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.