Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Scandisk fails to complete

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:27:25 PM

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
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:59:53 PM

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:D ADF196D-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
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:51:36 AM

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.ht...
> 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.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 10:03:46 AM

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
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:43:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 9:01:39 AM

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
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:52:09 PM

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
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:48:02 AM

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
>
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 5:00:07 PM

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
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:03:53 AM

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
>>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:48:01 PM

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
> >>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:17:37 PM

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
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:32:36 AM

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
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 2:11:21 AM

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>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 2:11:22 AM

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>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:44:03 AM

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>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:19:41 PM

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
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 9:11:01 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:37:19 PM

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) -------------------------
!