surface scan

[Guest]

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

Hi All,

Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
"Thorough" scan (surface scan)?

--Tony

 

[Guest]

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

Look under chkdsk in your help section. That's the replacement for
scandisk.
B.rgds,
Kevin

"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d90924$c47$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony

 

[vanguard]

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

"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d90924$c47$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony


So, did you actually try using the included help (Start -> Help and
Support) and search on "scandisk". The search will work but that's not
what you use in NT-based Windows.

 

[peter]

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

Depending on which one you are looking for:
There's chkdsk - Go to Start/Run and enter cmd then enter chkdsk /? then hit
Enter for all the options. Enter exit, then enter to leave the command
module.

Also there is the System File Checker sfc /scannow which is explained here:

http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html

--
Peter
Toronto, Canada
XP Home SP2
P4 HT @ 3.0ghz, 160gb HD, 1.0gb RAM
"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d90924$c47$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony

 

[Guest]

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

To check your C: Drive open a command prompt window. Then type in chkdsk c:
/r (including the spaces). You will get a message that the drive is in use
and can not be locked. Do you want to perform a check during the next boot
cycle. Say yes. Exit the window and reboot. The check will be performed.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d90924$c47$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony

 

[Guest]

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

Anthony Ewell <aewell@gbis.com> wrote:

> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk

Start > Run:
%systemroot%\hh.exe ms-its:%systemroot%\help\ntcmds.chm::/chkdsk.htm

--
d-d

 

[Guest]

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

"Detlev Dreyer" <detdreyer@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:243bb2623fabf81b094dbe577628b99f@d-d.mvps.org...
> Anthony Ewell <aewell@gbis.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>
> Start > Run:
> %systemroot%\hh.exe ms-its:%systemroot%\help\ntcmds.chm::/chkdsk.htm
>
> --
> d-d

Must be a Unix guy Wouldn't Start -> Run -> Help and Support -> chkdsk
be a little easier.

Kerry

 

[Guest]

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

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:OvK81oAdFHA.2760@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Detlev Dreyer" <detdreyer@flashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:243bb2623fabf81b094dbe577628b99f@d-d.mvps.org...
>> Anthony Ewell <aewell@gbis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>>
>> Start > Run:
>> %systemroot%\hh.exe ms-its:%systemroot%\help\ntcmds.chm::/chkdsk.htm
>>
>> --
>> d-d
>
> Must be a Unix guy Wouldn't Start -> Run -> Help and Support -> chkdsk
> be a little easier.
>

Whoops, even easier Start -> Help and Support -> chkdsk

Kerry

 

[Guest]

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

Anthony Ewell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony


Hi All,

I posted the above in a different posting. I got
a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
question. I was told to look up the options
on chkdsk and to use the /r option.

/R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
information (implies /F).

Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?

It really sounds to me like they are not the same
thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
active data, not both data and empty space.
For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
10 time as long.

Please enlighten me.

Many thanks,
--Tony

 

[Guest]

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

Kerry Brown <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

> Must be a Unix guy Wouldn't Start -> Run -> Help and Support ->
> chkdsk be a little easier.

Not really. You don't know where the OP comes from and the Help and
Support Center differs depending on the language. In German for
instance, "chkdsk" winds up with 2 hits. The first one refers to
the recovery console parameters only and therefore, I was posting
*that* way to ensure that the OP opens the other (correct) one.

--
d-d

 

[Guest]

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

"Detlev Dreyer" <detdreyer@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:578eb4d86f2281cd9fd91bb82c2a80b8@d-d.mvps.org...
> Kerry Brown <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>> Must be a Unix guy Wouldn't Start -> Run -> Help and Support ->
>> chkdsk be a little easier.
>
> Not really. You don't know where the OP comes from and the Help and
> Support Center differs depending on the language. In German for
> instance, "chkdsk" winds up with 2 hits. The first one refers to
> the recovery console parameters only and therefore, I was posting
> *that* way to ensure that the OP opens the other (correct) one.
>
> --
> d-d



Just a bit of Saturday morning sarcasm.

Kerry

 

[Guest]

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

Kerry Brown <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

> Just a bit of Saturday morning sarcasm.

Never mind, that's fine with me.
In addition, I do not like any 'over-engineering' either,
unless there is a (good) reason.

--
d-d

 

[Guest]

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

"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d92233$iip$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Anthony Ewell wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>>
>> --Tony
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I posted the above in a different posting. I got
> a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
> question. I was told to look up the options
> on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
>
> /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
> information (implies /F).
>
> Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
> it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
>
> It really sounds to me like they are not the same
> thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
> active data, not both data and empty space.
> For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
> 10 time as long.
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
> Many thanks,
> --Tony
>

Chkdsk /r does the same thing as scandisk with the thorough option. With
modern drives if you are seeing bad sectors the drive is probably no good
and should be replaced. Modern drives have replacement sectors they use
automatically. Windows (and the user) don't see this until all the spares
are used. The price of drives has come down to where you have to make a
judgement call on what your data is worth to you. With large drives under
$150.00 how much time do you want to spend when the drive ultimately fails
and you have to rebuild your file system? If chkdsk /r finds bad sectors I
would recommend downloading the usually free diagnostic software from the
manufacturer of your hard drive and test the drive. Be sure to back up your
data first. The act of testing can sometimes cause a marginal drive to fail.

Kerry

 

[Guest]

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

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
> news:d92233$iip$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>
>>Anthony Ewell wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>>>"Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>>>
>>>--Tony
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>> I posted the above in a different posting. I got
>>a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
>>question. I was told to look up the options
>>on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
>>
>> /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
>> information (implies /F).
>>
>> Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
>>it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
>>
>> It really sounds to me like they are not the same
>>thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
>>active data, not both data and empty space.
>>For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
>>10 time as long.
>>
>> Please enlighten me.
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>--Tony
>>
>
>
> Chkdsk /r does the same thing as scandisk with the thorough option. With
> modern drives if you are seeing bad sectors the drive is probably no good
> and should be replaced. Modern drives have replacement sectors they use
> automatically. Windows (and the user) don't see this until all the spares
> are used. The price of drives has come down to where you have to make a
> judgement call on what your data is worth to you. With large drives under
> $150.00 how much time do you want to spend when the drive ultimately fails
> and you have to rebuild your file system? If chkdsk /r finds bad sectors I
> would recommend downloading the usually free diagnostic software from the
> manufacturer of your hard drive and test the drive. Be sure to back up your
> data first. The act of testing can sometimes cause a marginal drive to fail.
>
> Kerry
>

Hi Kerry,

Thank you for the excellent answer. I have used the "/r"
option frequently but have never seen any errors on the
last pass (open space). The drives worked a lot better
afterwards. This explains it.

It is also nice to know that (S)ATA's are automatically
swapping out bad sectors. (I knew this was the case with
SCSI drives) (Some SATA drives now support command queueing
too. Cool stuff!)

--Tony

 

[Guest]

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

Actually, scandisk was not "replaced" by chkdsk in WinXP. No NT
computer has ever used scandisk; they have ALWAYS used chkdsk. So,
truthfully, scandisk just went away and chkdsk still exisits.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:12:40 -0700, "General Mailbox"
<nospam@home.net> wrote:

>Look under chkdsk in your help section. That's the replacement for
>scandisk.
>B.rgds,
>Kevin
>
>"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
>news:d90924$c47$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>>
>> --Tony
>

 

[Guest]

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

You asked a question about what was equivelent to scandisk surface scan. You
got your answer. Now you are fighting and questioning further.

Go find a better answer yourself!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d92233$iip$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Anthony Ewell wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
>> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>>
>> --Tony
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I posted the above in a different posting. I got
> a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
> question. I was told to look up the options
> on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
>
> /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
> information (implies /F).
>
> Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
> it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
>
> It really sounds to me like they are not the same
> thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
> active data, not both data and empty space.
> For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
> 10 time as long.
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
> Many thanks,
> --Tony
>

 

[Guest]

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

Richard Urban wrote:
> You asked a question about what was equivelent to scandisk surface scan. You
> got your answer. Now you are fighting and questioning further.
>
> Go find a better answer yourself!
>

Richard!

Your answer was "how" to run "chkdsk." Not
what it did.

To check your C: Drive open a command prompt window.
Then type in chkdsk c: /r (including the spaces). You
will get a message that the drive is in use and can not
be locked. Do you want to perform a check during the
next boot cycle. Say yes. Exit the window and reboot.
The check will be performed.

You need to read questions more closely
before you jump to a conclusion and answer the
a question that is not being asked. (It was an
excellent write up, by the way. I'd keep a copy
of it around, in case someone needs that question
answered in the future.)

--Tony

 

[Guest]

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

I would NOT have told you to do it if it did NOT do what you wanted! Sorry I
didn't give a full explanation but you can always use the help section for
full write ups!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:d92hir$4ea$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> You asked a question about what was equivelent to scandisk surface scan.
>> You got your answer. Now you are fighting and questioning further.
>>
>> Go find a better answer yourself!
>>
>
> Richard!
>
> Your answer was "how" to run "chkdsk." Not
> what it did.
>
> To check your C: Drive open a command prompt window.
> Then type in chkdsk c: /r (including the spaces). You
> will get a message that the drive is in use and can not
> be locked. Do you want to perform a check during the
> next boot cycle. Say yes. Exit the window and reboot.
> The check will be performed.
>
> You need to read questions more closely
> before you jump to a conclusion and answer the
> a question that is not being asked. (It was an
> excellent write up, by the way. I'd keep a copy
> of it around, in case someone needs that question
> answered in the future.)
>
> --Tony
>