Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (
More info?)
I agree with your analysis - ScanDefrag is a bl**dy good tool, when applied
under the right cirumstances - It was originally written purely as a way for
people with problems running ScanDisk and/or Defrag to use the embedded
functionality of Windows ME to do so without resorting to significant
effort in fine-tuning boots (which is frequently beyond even more
experienced users like me<g>). Since its conception, the writers have added
functionality to the program, so that it is now not so tightly focussed -
but still retains its original excellence.
Some people are never happy! <g>
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Peter Hallett" <PeterHallett@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B726CC63-C151-4726-BB8E-EB92B3FC87EF@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your help. It is probably as well that the discussion seems to
> be
> near its end. It was getting a little heated and I never find that
> expletives add anything to a technical discussion.
>
> I have posted a reply to Joan Archer which is directed to everyone but
> actually refers to the piece of software she recommended, so I think that
> it
> is most appropriately directed to her. However, it also addresses some of
> the points you raised.
>
> I can't find any sign of malware on the ME machine. I think that Scandisk
> is just being interrupted by normal software. I have seen this problem
> numerous times in the past and formed the conclusion that Scandisk is not
> that good at resource sharing. You will note from the post, to which I
> have
> just referred, that I did eventually get Scandisk running by unloading
> right
> back to Explorer. If, however, ScanDefrag can be persuaded that its
> shutdown
> is improper every time it runs then that will be a bonus. My neighbour
> would
> not be interested in unloading all her machine's processes every time she
> wants to check her disk.
>
> Hopefully we can now put this one to bed. Despite the raising of one or
> two
> hackles, I think it ploughed useful ground.
> --
> Peter Hallett
>
>
> "Noel Paton" wrote:
>
>> Peter
>> It should not be necessary to use third-party tools to run scandisk -
>> although it may be so, if you have certain (undefined) software
>> installed.
>> The major reason that ScanDisk fails to complete is that software is
>> running
>> in the background that writes to the HD - forcing ScanDisk to restart.
>> Usually, booting to Safe Mode, and running ScanDisk from there, will
>> alleviate that problem.
>> A secondary reason (related to the first) is that you may have malware
>> present on the PC which is attempting to do things that no
>> self-respecting
>> program would attempt to do - some of the cleverer ones are also capable
>> of
>> running in Safe mode, thereby circumventing the workaround in the first
>> para. (note that some legitimate software also has good reason to run in
>> Safe Mode, and may cause ScanDisk to restart/freeze)
>>
>> Another possibility is that you have a hardware problem - although since
>> you
>> say that a boot-time scan runs without problems, this is unlikely, unless
>> your default otherwise is to run a Thorough scan.
>>
>> ScanDefrag was written by a group of people VERY familiar with ME,
>> including
>> one who I was proud to call a friend, before his death
>> (http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/RIPKB.htm), and has gone through very
>> extensive testing in these groups - my impression is that if you can't
>> get
>> ScanDisk to run through using ScanDefrag, then you have a hardware
>> problem
>> (I've never been able to test this out!<g>)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>
>>
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>
>> "Peter Hallett" <PeterHallett@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3B1C69E1-EF36-48C6-AFA3-2E84F0B5A661@microsoft.com...
>> > Good heavens, I was not expecting to start World War 3 with my
>> > innocuous
>> > post! Although the ensuing exchange has made fascinating reading, the
>> > fact
>> > is that I still cannot get ScanDisk to run to completion under ME.
>> > Despite
>> > the somewhat conflicting advice, the result is as follows:-
>> > 1. If I turn the computer off with the power switch, ScanDisk then
>> > runs
>> > just fine when the machine is turned back on.
>> > 2. I am sure that that is not a good thing to do but then computers
>> > lose
>> > power every time there is a supply interuption. If head crashes were
>> > even
>> > an
>> > infrequent result of power loss, I doubt whether there would be many
>> > PCs
>> > left
>> > running.
>> > 3. Getting back to the point of my original question, should I
>> > therefore
>> > acquire the alternative utilitiy suggested in the original reply as the
>> > only
>> > viable alternative to playing Russion roulette with my neighbour's hard
>> > drive?
>> > --
>> > Peter Hallett
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Corliss" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Peter Hallett wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It is a while since I had anything to do with ME but I recently
>> >> > offered
>> >> > to
>> >> > look at a neighbour's computer which was showing what I remember as
>> >> > typical
>> >> > ME problems - ie hanging for no apparent reason. As well as the
>> >> > spurious
>> >> > lock-ups, the most obvious symptoms of my neighbour's difficulties
>> >> > was
>> >> > frequent inability to log-on to Outlook Express and, specifically, a
>> >> > failure
>> >> > of ScanDisk to run to completion, which she tells me is a late
>> >> > development.
>> >> > I thought at first that the machine's problems might be due to its
>> >> > 128Mb of
>> >> > memory, which is certainly paltry by today's standards. However,
>> >> > putting in
>> >> > another 128Mb has not helped greatly, although Outlook Express is a
>> >> > bit
>> >> > more
>> >> > reliable. Try as I might, I cannot persuade the machine to go into
>> >> > Safe
>> >> > Mode.
>> >> >
>> >> > Has anyone any idea what the cause of these problems might be? (At
>> >> > least
>> >> > the exercise has reminded me why I ditched ME for Windows 2000. XP,
>> >> > in
>> >> > comparison, appears a luxury.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I have tried terminating all running programs before running
>> >> > ScanDisk
>> >> > but I
>> >> > still cannot get it to complete. The folder check gets about 2/3
>> >> > through and
>> >> > then restarts. After a while ScanDisk announces that it has done 10
>> >> > restarts
>> >> > and asks if the operation want to continue. It gets no further.
>> >>
>> >> You might try turning off the computer by using the power button, and
>> >> then maybe the system will detect an incorrect shutdown and run
>> >> Scandisk
>> >> before the OS completely starts.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards from John Corliss
>> >>
>>
>>
>>