Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (
More info?)
"Stephen H. Fischer" <sfischer1@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news
D2Zc.3775$8d1.1106@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Hi,
>
> The current state of NTFS recovery software (I.E. supplied with the O.S.)
> appears to me to violate "The Goal of Trustworthy Computing",
I think this is a far fetched point. I don't understand how my car works in
great detail, still I trust it. Also it appears to me, the main focus of
"Trustworthy Computing" is privacy: I don't want my information to become
available to others without my approval. And beside that, I don't appreciate
it that much, IMO it's mainly marketing.
> Reliability:
> The customer can depend on the product to fulfill its functions.
>
Wake up call: There is no softeware in the world that will under all
circumstances deliver what it is intended for. This can be due to software
bugs or external factors. Chkdsk's main purpose is file system consistency
and integrity, not data recovery per se. File system structures can simply
be beyond repair.
> There appears to be a dichotomy in the handling of file system errors.
>
> CHKDSK will run or CHKDSK will not run is the dividing point.
>
> If CHKDSK will run, it does its work and repairs the file system with
> minimal reporting.
You're making a mistake. The fact that chkdsk runs does not mean by
defintion it delivers and actually will repair the file system. In a data
loss scenario chkdsk may be the last thing you want ...
> The decision apparently has been made to have it do its
> work now behind a blank screen during the boot process.
If you want you can see chkdsk run and you can also learn what it actually
does. Just search the MS KB.
> Thus it has passed
> into to the realm of programs that to weekend computer warriors will
always
> succeed as it is started and runs without input from the user.
>
To weekend computer warriors (who ever they are) software will always
succeed. Unfortunely this is not the case.
> As the years have gone by, less and less information on what it has done
is
> being reported. This has been mirrored by Norton,
Many weekend PC warriors actually prefer this. Many people are actually able
to use a PC because it's complexity is hidden from them. Many people say,
spare me the techno babble, I don't care how you do it, just do it. And they
want it to be as easy as possible. And this is normal, we all probably use
many machines, devices and techniques all day we do not have a very deep
understanding of, of how they work.
> appearing to long term
> Norton users that they are getting less and less for their money.
>
The problem with Norton is that they make you pay for non substantial
upgrades, but that is a different matter. Besides that, millions don't seem
to care as they happily upgrade every year.
> If CHKDSK will not run, then there is no path to recover.
Yes there is ...
> That is the
> violation.
>
Untrue. In every simple PC magazine, in every manual it is repeated over and
over again to make backups. So no one can claim he wasn't warned that
something may go wrong.
> Persons who are trying to protect their rice bowl think this is just fine
> and apparently are stifling any improvement in documentation, reporting of
> what is wrong and actually doing the repair.
>
Bull. I have a Saab, if there's something wrong, the car's computer will
tell me there's "engine trouble" and advises me to take it to the garage. I
am fine with that, I don't want it to talk about parts being broken I don't
know what they do anyway. If I take in my car for repairs, I want it
repaired, I don't want to be lectured in car maintenance. So the mechanic
hooks up the car to a computer which will give much more info. I pay the guy
for the service to interpret the info and do something about it. I can not
be knowledgable on every possible subject.
If I do want to know about car maintenance, I buy a book or do a course on
the subject. If I study the subject enough I can fix other peoples cars and
get payed for that or maybe even create tools allowing other to fix their
own car.
So if you insist of fixing your NTFS trouble yourself; happy reading!
> To those who say that the only method of repair if CHKDSK will not run is
to
> hire a person who has many years of experience and makes a living doing
data
> recovery just adds to the dichotomy.
You can be stuborn, but that won't change the truth. Some scenarios require
extensive knowledge. See car example.
> CHKDSK is trusted (and Norton) to
> repair the file system all by its self for the second case.
>
I don't trust them to that. In data loss scenarios I'd even be against
running any of those 2.
> That it cannot be trusted for the first case is a false position. The
rules
> for discovering what is wrong and what to do to repair the file system can
> be included in the CHKDSK program and need not as data recovery persons
say,
> be kept only in the human brain.
There are books on NTFS and there is extensive open source and free NTFS
documentation available (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/). Still,
many rather pay someone who studied that documentation and provides software
based on the knowledge.
> The rules for finding what is wrong when
> CHKDSK will run were transferred from the human brain, why not the rules
for
> when it will not run.
>
It did tell why it didn't run: "Unable to determine Volume Version and
State".
> Repair in place I have stated is the only viable solution for gargantuan
> sized external hard drives that cannot be backed up currently.
Any disk can be backed up, just buy a same size disk.
>
> It may be useful to keep copies of various data structures to aid in the
> recovery by CHKDSK., that is what I wish to do now but my list is
incomplete
> I suspect.
>
Tools you referred to (Norton) do keep copies of some structures, though
they may simply not be enough. NTFS itself keeps copies of some structures.
Don't you understand? Anything man made can be broken. And some things
simply can not be fixed or forseen. To increase your chances keep copies of
all structures and data, it's called a backup.
> The argument that confusing and intimidating information must not be shown
> to the users is an strong argument towards eliminating the dichotomy and
> doing the job without the user being involved.
>
Nonsense. For years end users have asked to hide the techno babble - Linux
will grow as soon as they start to understand that. Those interested in the
techno side of stuff can do so. Try Linux. BTW, XP comes with loads of
command line tools that allow you to configure chkdsk and every thing else
you can't do from behind a nice GUI.
In Linux, everything is open source. It is however a misconception that all
people will know be able to understand how everything works. There's simply
too much info, plus many people don't even care.
> Furthermore, keeping information from all persons because some may not
> understand is elitist and should not be condoned.
>
Nothing to do with elite. It sounds good though, but it is a statement and
not a valid argument.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> What will follow now I suspect will be a massive attempt by persons
wishing
> to stop their rice bowls from being broken.
>
Well, I do not feel like attempting to do *that* at all. I am not afraid of
that all. It's really easy to make statements like your last statement; to
anyone responding you can now say: "you see, told you so! He's trying to
protect his rice bowl, no matter what he says".
--
Joep
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram