Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are lost clusters the same as bad clusters.......

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:48:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use Norton.
I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question mark).
When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and I
read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often finds
fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.


Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
> Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system file, you
> aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
> procedure
> is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
> files.
> (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you have
> came from.)
>
> Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in message
> news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
>
> So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part of
> a
> essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
> starts-
> repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
> clusters
> or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
>
>
> Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
> It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd either
> have
> to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to save
> copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
>
> I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to possibly
> find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
> documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
> data
> that can be used as is.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
> message--
> news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
>
> That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
> them-
> I-
> should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
> mark).-
> Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what I-
> want-
> to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
> deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
> incase---
> it-
> alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with doing
> that so I skip.
>
>
> PCR Wrote:-
> "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
> news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> |
> | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters
> are
> | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
> middle--
> with
> | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line
> the
> | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up
> are no
> | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
> those--
> | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
> recognizably
> | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
> reset
> | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
> incorrectly
> | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
> over
> | becoming Lost Clusters.
> |
> | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be--
> read--
> in
> | part or in whole.
> |
> | WOE.
> | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
> | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
> | have ever read.
> | Each line was an edification.
> |
> | **accolades**
> |
> | regards Jane
>
> I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
> offered!
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net-
>
>
> --
> PSYCHOPIXIE--
>
>
> --
> PSYCHOPIXIE-


--
PSYCHOPIXIE
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:48:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you have lost clusters, it may do your computer some good to defrag the
HDD. this should move the clusters back to where they should be.

Hope this helps,
Aaron Liske

"PSYCHOPIXIE" wrote:

>
> I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use Norton.
> I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question mark).
> When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
> other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and I
> read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often finds
> fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.
>
>
> Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
> > Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system file, you
> > aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
> > procedure
> > is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
> > files.
> > (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you have
> > came from.)
> >
> > Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in message
> > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
> >
> > So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part of
> > a
> > essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
> > starts-
> > repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
> > clusters
> > or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
> >
> >
> > Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
> > It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd either
> > have
> > to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to save
> > copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
> >
> > I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to possibly
> > find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
> > documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
> > data
> > that can be used as is.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
> > message--
> > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
> >
> > That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
> > them-
> > I-
> > should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
> > mark).-
> > Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what I-
> > want-
> > to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
> > deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
> > incase---
> > it-
> > alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with doing
> > that so I skip.
> >
> >
> > PCR Wrote:-
> > "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
> > news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > |
> > | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters
> > are
> > | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
> > middle--
> > with
> > | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line
> > the
> > | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up
> > are no
> > | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
> > those--
> > | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
> > recognizably
> > | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
> > reset
> > | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
> > incorrectly
> > | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
> > over
> > | becoming Lost Clusters.
> > |
> > | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be--
> > read--
> > in
> > | part or in whole.
> > |
> > | WOE.
> > | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
> > | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
> > | have ever read.
> > | Each line was an edification.
> > |
> > | **accolades**
> > |
> > | regards Jane
> >
> > I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
> > offered!
> >
> > --
> > Thanks or Good Luck,
> > There may be humor in this post, and,
> > Naturally, you will not sue,
> > should things get worse after this,
> > PCR
> > pcrrcp@netzero.net-
> >
> >
> > --
> > PSYCHOPIXIE--
> >
> >
> > --
> > PSYCHOPIXIE-
>
>
> --
> PSYCHOPIXIE
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:44:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

ROFL!! You're kidding, right?

Defragmenting will do nothing to repair Lost Clusters. They *can't_be*
repaired except manually, by someone who's familiar with such
techniques.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Aaron Liske" <programertobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A1DC07F-A966-4802-8288-AE249CD4E7D2@microsoft.com...
> If you have lost clusters, it may do your computer some good to defrag
the
> HDD. this should move the clusters back to where they should be.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Aaron Liske
>
> "PSYCHOPIXIE" wrote:
>
> >
> > I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use
Norton.
> > I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question
mark).
> > When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
> > other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and
I
> > read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often
finds
> > fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.
> >
> >
> > Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
> > > Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system
file, you
> > > aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
> > > procedure
> > > is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
> > > files.
> > > (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you
have
> > > came from.)
> > >
> > > Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP Shell/User
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> > >
> > > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in
message
> > > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
> > >
> > > So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part
of
> > > a
> > > essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
> > > starts-
> > > repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
> > > clusters
> > > or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
> > > It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd
either
> > > have
> > > to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to
save
> > > copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
> > >
> > > I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to
possibly
> > > find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
> > > documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
> > > data
> > > that can be used as is.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP Shell/User
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> > >
> > > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
> > > message--
> > > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
> > >
> > > That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
> > > them-
> > > I-
> > > should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
> > > mark).-
> > > Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what
I-
> > > want-
> > > to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
> > > deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
> > > incase---
> > > it-
> > > alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with
doing
> > > that so I skip.
> > >
> > >
> > > PCR Wrote:-
> > > "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
> > > news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > |
> > > | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost
Clusters
> > > are
> > > | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
> > > middle--
> > > with
> > > | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the
line
> > > the
> > > | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it
up
> > > are no
> > > | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
> > > those--
> > > | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
> > > recognizably
> > > | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced
to
> > > reset
> > > | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
> > > incorrectly
> > > | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
> > > over
> > > | becoming Lost Clusters.
> > > |
> > > | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't
be--
> > > read--
> > > in
> > > | part or in whole.
> > > |
> > > | WOE.
> > > | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
> > > | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
> > > | have ever read.
> > > | Each line was an edification.
> > > |
> > > | **accolades**
> > > |
> > > | regards Jane
> > >
> > > I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
> > > offered!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks or Good Luck,
> > > There may be humor in this post, and,
> > > Naturally, you will not sue,
> > > should things get worse after this,
> > > PCR
> > > pcrrcp@netzero.net-
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PSYCHOPIXIE--
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PSYCHOPIXIE-
> >
> >
> > --
> > PSYCHOPIXIE
> >
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 9:00:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Could it have been... setupx.dll...?...

http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp?fr=0&SD=GN... MSKB
Search "setupx.dll"; Windows 98; Full Text; Exact Phrase; does produce
many. Better go look, just to see the kind of errors that would pop up
if you really had a bad one. If you experience no other "setupx.dll"
problem, then do the easier solution in...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;231793&Product=w98
Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second Edition
(231793) - After you install Windows 98 Second Edition, you may be
notified by the System File Checker tool (SFC) that the Setupx.dll file
is corrupted.

Here is how to replace it, if necessary...

SETUPX.DLL
Desc: Windows Setup Functions
Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
Size: 745,168 bytes
Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
Ver: 4.10.2222

That is old enough (in Win98SE) never to have been modified by an
update. So, extract it with SFC.

(1) "START, Run, SFC"
(2) Bolt "Extract one file from installation disk"
(3) Enter "SETUPX.DLL" in the "Specify..." box.
(4) Click "Start".
(5) It should offer to "Save file in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM".
If not, make it so.
(6) In "Restore from", if not already pre-filled, browse to
(a) Installation CD (likely the Win98 folder) or
(b) The folder that has your cabs on the hard drive, likely
"C:\WINDOWS\options\cabs\".
(7) Click "OK"

If it discovers the file already exists, it will offer to back it up.
May as well do so. If it discovers the file is "in use", it will request
that you reboot to complete the install.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q185836
System File Checker
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q188186
SFC baseline
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q192832
SFC extracts wrong file
http://www.westelcom.com/users/rogersr/sfc.htm SFC use & problems
http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/using_sfc.html SFC use & problems


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"PSYCHOPIXIE" <PSYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com...
|
| I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use
Norton.
| I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question
mark).
| When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
| other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and I
| read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often finds
| fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.
|
|
| Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
| > Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system file,
you
| > aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
| > procedure
| > is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
| > files.
| > (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you
have
| > came from.)
| >
| > Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
| >
| > --
| > Gary S. Terhune
| > MS MVP Shell/User
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
| >
| > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in
message
| > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
| >
| > So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part of
| > a
| > essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
| > starts-
| > repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
| > clusters
| > or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
| >
| >
| > Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
| > It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd either
| > have
| > to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to save
| > copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
| >
| > I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to possibly
| > find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
| > documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
| > data
| > that can be used as is.
| >
| > --
| > Gary S. Terhune
| > MS MVP Shell/User
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
| >
| > "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
| > message--
| > news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
| >
| > That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
| > them-
| > I-
| > should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
| > mark).-
| > Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what I-
| > want-
| > to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
| > deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
| > incase---
| > it-
| > alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with doing
| > that so I skip.
| >
| >
| > PCR Wrote:-
| > "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
| > news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > |
| > | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters
| > are
| > | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
| > middle--
| > with
| > | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line
| > the
| > | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up
| > are no
| > | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
| > those--
| > | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
| > recognizably
| > | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
| > reset
| > | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
| > incorrectly
| > | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
| > over
| > | becoming Lost Clusters.
| > |
| > | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be--
| > read--
| > in
| > | part or in whole.
| > |
| > | WOE.
| > | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
| > | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
| > | have ever read.
| > | Each line was an edification.
| > |
| > | **accolades**
| > |
| > | regards Jane
| >
| > I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
| > offered!
| >
| > --
| > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net-
| >
| >
| > --
| > PSYCHOPIXIE--
| >
| >
| > --
| > PSYCHOPIXIE-
|
|
| --
| PSYCHOPIXIE
!