Scandisk fails to complete

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

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.
--
Peter Hallett
18 answers Last reply
More about scandisk fails complete
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Peter
    Just a short note to say our Me laptop won't do a scandisk unless it
    is in SAFE mode. I note you are having trouble getting into Safe
    mode. If the normal method (tapping the F8 key) doesn't work, go to
    MSCONFIG (Start/Run and type MSCONFIG), click on ADVANCED and put a
    checkmark in ENABLE STARTUP. Don't forget to remove the checkmark when
    you are finished.
    Hope this helps

    Dan

    "Peter Hallett" <PeterHallett@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:DADF196D-85E9-47FA-9933-5EFFBEB47666@microsoft.com...
    > 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.
    > --
    > Peter Hallett
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Have you tried doing it from Safe Mode, if that works try downloading
    ScanDefrag.
    Joan
    The free ScanDefrag is the most advanced disk maintenance
    > program there is. It runs Disk Cleanup, ScanDisk, and Disk
    > Defragmenter. It's easy to setup and use, and it can deal with
    > problems like "drive's contents have changed: restarting...".
    > Get it and read about all the options it has that you can use.
    > http://home.earthlink.net/~bblanton2/scandefrag/main.htm
    > http://www.blueorbsoft.com/scandefrag/index.html
    >
    > Enjoy....
    >
    > - The ScanDefrag Team -

    Peter Hallett wrote:
    >snip>
    >
    > 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.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    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
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    I have used voptxp with windows ME at
    http://www.goldenbow.com/
    for years. It always completes, costs some money but does the job


    On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:27:25 -0700, "Peter Hallett"
    <PeterHallett@discussions.microsoft.com> 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.
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Noel Paton wrote:

    > That's the point - the system is *locked up* and therefore very unlikely to
    > be doing anything on the HD - and besides which, if the system won't respond
    > to CAD or a shutdown request what else can you do??
    >
    > That does NOT give carte-blanche for doing this for every little bad-manners
    > attack that the computer throws at you!!

    OKAY!!! I get the point!!!

    LTFU. (hint: first letter stands for "LIGHTEN")

    --
    Regards from John Corliss
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    The disk drive manufacture (or the computer manufacturer if
    he was responsible) provide hardware diagnostics. Until you
    have tested either Windows or the hardware separately (without
    the other), then you really don't know which to suspect. Get
    the manufacturer's hard drive diagnostic. Run that. It will
    report any problems with hard drive, or declare drive as OK.
    That eliminates one suspect, provides your posts with
    information so that others can provide a useful response, and
    gets answers fast without all this 'time wasting' speculation.

    In the meantime, you don't persuade the machine to go into
    safe mode. You select it from the menu of options. I believe
    it is either pressing the F5 key or F8 key while Windows boots
    results in a menu of boot and execution options.

    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.
    > --
    > Peter Hallett
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    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
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    For 'persuade' read, "Depress the F8 key as often as you like during boot-up
    and in whatever part of the start-up cycle your fancy. Hold it down
    permanently, hit it with a hammer or stand the Windows Resource Kit Manual on
    it while rebooting the machine over and over again. Then try the same
    procedure with the Ctrl key, which the computer manufacturer suggests as an
    alternative, should F8 not work. (Presumably he was aware that it might
    not.)" The result is always the same. The machine boots directly into ME.

    I just thought that 'persuade' would save me the trouble of writing a lot of
    verbiage and you the inconvenience of reading it. (If you are wondering
    whether it is some 'back street' computer, it was in fact manufactured by one
    of the leading distibutors.)
    --
    Peter Hallett


    "w_tom" wrote:

    > The disk drive manufacture (or the computer manufacturer if
    > he was responsible) provide hardware diagnostics. Until you
    > have tested either Windows or the hardware separately (without
    > the other), then you really don't know which to suspect. Get
    > the manufacturer's hard drive diagnostic. Run that. It will
    > report any problems with hard drive, or declare drive as OK.
    > That eliminates one suspect, provides your posts with
    > information so that others can provide a useful response, and
    > gets answers fast without all this 'time wasting' speculation.
    >
    > In the meantime, you don't persuade the machine to go into
    > safe mode. You select it from the menu of options. I believe
    > it is either pressing the F5 key or F8 key while Windows boots
    > results in a menu of boot and execution options.
    >
    > 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.
    > > --
    > > Peter Hallett
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    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
    >>
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    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
    > >>
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    inline...

    Peter Hallett wrote:
    > I trust that the following will be of interest to anyone who has been taking
    > part in this post.
    >
    > ScanDefrag appears to
    > be a shell, which simply runs these self-same MS utilities. The only third
    > party function it performs would seem to be that of a sequencer.

    yup; though if you run it in "restrictive" mode it doesn't load anything
    more than the basic startup tasks; that clears up problems for 90% of
    users. I don't suffer from those problems but I use it for it's "set
    and forget" utility.

    > if Scandisk won’t run to completion from a Run
    > command then it is unlikely to do so from within ScanDefrag.

    see above irt "restrictive mode"; looks like you didn't read the manual.

    Glad you've got one of the problems licked.


    Rick
  12. 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
    >> >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Did someone call <g>

    You say you posted a reply to me can you tell me where as I don't seem to
    see one from you in here <g>
    Joan


    Peter Hallett wrote:
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >snip>
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Joan Archer wrote:
    > Did someone call <g>
    >
    > You say you posted a reply to me can you tell me where as I don't seem to
    > see one from you in here <g>
    > Joan

    I think he means the one upstream aways (which I've replied to).

    Peter, *everybody* who regularly posts in these groups uses and
    recommends ScanDefrag which was written by a pair of MVPs who used to
    frequent here.

    M$ Scandisk and Defrag were written before it became common to load all
    sorts of resource-hogging tasks.


    Rick

    >
    >
    >
    > Peter Hallett wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >>
    >>snip>
    >
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    It's right under you first reply to me dated 4/14/2005
    --
    Peter Hallett


    "Joan Archer" wrote:

    > Did someone call <g>
    >
    > You say you posted a reply to me can you tell me where as I don't seem to
    > see one from you in here <g>
    > Joan
    >
    >
    >
    > Peter Hallett wrote:
    > >
    > > 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.
    > >
    > >snip>
    >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Which is probably why I don't see it as I don't keep messages on here more
    than a couple of days old <g> and as Rick has pointed out you will find
    many in here that will recommend ScanDefrag, and all of them with better
    knowledge than me <g>
    Joan


    Peter Hallett wrote:
    > It's right under you first reply to me dated 4/14/2005
    >
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    I am sorry that this is a bit of a tardy response. My neighbours have been
    away in Crete for a time so I have only recently been able to regain access
    to their computer.

    OK. You got me. I'll put my hands up to not reading enough of the manual.
    I have now tried restrictive mode but all Hell broke loose. Blue screens of
    death one after another. It was really one of those nasty moments when you
    think that you have screwed up someone else's computer big time. (I began to
    wonder whether I would be better off in Crete.)

    It finally recovered but I decided that the safest procedure might be to
    unload the software manually before running Scan Disk. There is something
    about the restart in restrictive mode that the system really does not seem to
    like, although it may just be an example of an ageing machine not getting on
    too well with a modern software complement - probably a bit like trying to
    jitterbug with an octogenarian. My own Pentium 4 XP computer thinks that
    ScanDefrag is great.

    There probably is not a lot to be gained from trying to second guess an old
    machine. I have found from past experience that that can be a hiding to
    nothing. With a bit of TLC, it should be able to put in a few more years of
    useful work but it still refuses to go into Safe Mode. Luckily, Scan Disk
    does not have to be run that often. The best thing seems to be to let it
    continue to do what it does best and forget the rest. Anyhow, thanks for
    your help. At least the operational limits have now been established.
    --
    Peter Hallett


    "Rick T" wrote:

    > inline...
    >
    > Peter Hallett wrote:
    > > I trust that the following will be of interest to anyone who has been taking
    > > part in this post.
    > >
    > > ScanDefrag appears to
    > > be a shell, which simply runs these self-same MS utilities. The only third
    > > party function it performs would seem to be that of a sequencer.
    >
    > yup; though if you run it in "restrictive" mode it doesn't load anything
    > more than the basic startup tasks; that clears up problems for 90% of
    > users. I don't suffer from those problems but I use it for it's "set
    > and forget" utility.
    >
    > > if Scandisk won’t run to completion from a Run
    > > command then it is unlikely to do so from within ScanDefrag.
    >
    > see above irt "restrictive mode"; looks like you didn't read the manual.
    >
    > Glad you've got one of the problems licked.
    >
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    Peter, you should inform them that the computer has a problem which you
    are unable to fix.


    Peter Hallett wrote:
    > I am sorry that this is a bit of a tardy response. My neighbours have been
    > away in Crete for a time so I have only recently been able to regain access
    > to their computer.
    >
    > OK. You got me. I'll put my hands up to not reading enough of the manual.
    > I have now tried restrictive mode but all Hell broke loose. Blue screens of
    > death one after another.
    >
    -------------------------- (big snip) -------------------------
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows