Bad Sectors - Now Warning from XP!

[Guest]

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

My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a number
of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL errors. When
trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be corrupt and we kept
getting "cannot copy file" errors during the backup phase. Also, it seemed
to be running very slowly. When we tried to run the disk defragger utility
it quit very quickly with no explanation, and no defrag.

After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems pointed
to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility in the repair
mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and told me it was
repairing each one.

My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why doesn't XP
tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost no warning about
this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP had many opportunities to
let us know...

2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY restore
the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?

3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD has
not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?

 

[Guest]

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

Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?

Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
Bill Lurie

Moshup Trail wrote:
> My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a number
> of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL errors. When
> trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be corrupt and we kept
> getting "cannot copy file" errors during the backup phase. Also, it seemed
> to be running very slowly. When we tried to run the disk defragger utility
> it quit very quickly with no explanation, and no defrag.
>
> After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems pointed
> to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility in the repair
> mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and told me it was
> repairing each one.
>
> My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why doesn't XP
> tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost no warning about
> this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP had many opportunities to
> let us know...
>
> 2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY restore
> the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>
> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
> using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD has
> not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
> taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>
>


--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

In news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
William B. Lurie <billurie@nospam.org> typed:

> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to
> ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really
> wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?


No. Bad sectors are physically damaged, and not repairable.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

William B. Lurie wrote:
> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>
>
>

Because "Bad Sectors" indicates physical damage to one or more the hard
drive's platters. No software in the world can repair physical damage.
The best that WinXP, or any other OS, can do is mark those sectors as
bad, so that no data gets written to them.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Guest]

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

"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>
> Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
> years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
> an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
> It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
> a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
> about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
> doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
> Bill Lurie
>
> Moshup Trail wrote:
>> My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a
>> number
>> of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL errors.
>> When
>> trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be corrupt and we kept
>> getting "cannot copy file" errors during the backup phase. Also, it
>> seemed
>> to be running very slowly. When we tried to run the disk defragger
>> utility
>> it quit very quickly with no explanation, and no defrag.
>>
>> After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems
>> pointed
>> to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility in the
>> repair
>> mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and told me it was
>> repairing each one.
>>
>> My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why doesn't
>> XP
>> tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost no warning
>> about
>> this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP had many opportunities
>> to
>> let us know...
>>
>> 2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY
>> restore
>> the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>
>> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
>> using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD
>> has
>> not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
>> taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>
>>

A few bad sectors never hurt anybody.. the bad sectors would not necessarily
have been responsible for the file errors.. if XP was to continuously check
the drive for bad sectors, you would not be able to do anything on it as
chkdsk is a very intensive function.. chkdsk marks the bad sector and moves
the data elsewhere..

SP2 installs ok onto a computer that is working as it should.. that is to
say, there are no errors.. missing DLLs are usually down to the user
'deleting' programs instead of using the ADD/REMOVE function..

Two pieces of advice.. #1. Train your mother in the correct way to remove
unwanted software.. #2. Look at this website..
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

 

[Guest]

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

From a reply to a post of yours on 11/24/04



"I find it hard to believe that you can be so perpetually confused about
your
computer.

OR, are you a troll. Maybe just stupid???"



And now you say/imply that you have been using computers for 20 years?

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard


"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>
> Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
> years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
> an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
> It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
> a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
> about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
> doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
> Bill Lurie
>
> Moshup Trail wrote:
>> My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a
>> number
>> of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL errors.
>> When
>> trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be corrupt and we kept
>> getting "cannot copy file" errors during the backup phase. Also, it
>> seemed
>> to be running very slowly. When we tried to run the disk defragger
>> utility
>> it quit very quickly with no explanation, and no defrag.
>>
>> After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems
>> pointed
>> to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility in the
>> repair
>> mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and told me it was
>> repairing each one.
>>
>> My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why doesn't
>> XP
>> tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost no warning
>> about
>> this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP had many opportunities
>> to
>> let us know...
>>
>> 2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY
>> restore
>> the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>
>> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
>> using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD
>> has
>> not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
>> taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>
> Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
> years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
> an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
> It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
> a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
> about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
> doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
> Bill Lurie
>

Yo Bill

At last.. somebody who has been around computers for ever.. what OS did you
use, and on what machine way back in the heady days of 10mb HDDs?..

Mike Hall

 

[Guest]

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

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> William B. Lurie wrote:
>
>> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
>> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
>> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Because "Bad Sectors" indicates physical damage to one or more the
> hard drive's platters. No software in the world can repair physical
> damage. The best that WinXP, or any other OS, can do is mark those
> sectors as bad, so that no data gets written to them.
>
Makes sense, Bruce. Thanks for the useful and educational comment.

--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

Mike Hall wrote:

> "William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>>Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
>>since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
>>smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>>
>>Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
>>years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
>>an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
>>It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
>>a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
>>about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
>>doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
>>Bill Lurie
>>
>
>
> Yo Bill
>
> At last.. somebody who has been around computers for ever.. what OS did you
> use, and on what machine way back in the heady days of 10mb HDDs?..
>
> Mike Hall
>
>
Hi, Mike....

Glad to communicate with someone not writing just for the
purpose of being snippy. I bought a Compaq Portable, in
1984, for close to $4000.... weighed close to 30 pounds,
but I could still sling it into an airline overhead rack
for traveling. It had a built-in 7" monitor, and I believe
a 4.7 Megahertz time base. The OS was DOS...3, or 4.

--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

Well you must be really dumb as you are an idiot know and in twenty years you haven't learnt a single thing except to waste others time with your stupidity whech you seem proud off.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>
> Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
> years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
> an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
> It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
> a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
> about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
> doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
> Bill Lurie
>
> Moshup Trail wrote:
>> My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a number
>> of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL errors. When
>> trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be corrupt and we kept
>> getting "cannot copy file" errors during the backup phase. Also, it seemed
>> to be running very slowly. When we tried to run the disk defragger utility
>> it quit very quickly with no explanation, and no defrag.
>>
>> After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems pointed
>> to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility in the repair
>> mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and told me it was
>> repairing each one.
>>
>> My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why doesn't XP
>> tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost no warning about
>> this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP had many opportunities to
>> let us know...
>>
>> 2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY restore
>> the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>
>> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
>> using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD has
>> not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
>> taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

>snip<
> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I am
> using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and the HD has
> not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would cause it, or
> taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>
>
Check the power ( amps and volts) going to the computer. Any deviation
from normal can cause all kinds of problems. Also make sure that
everything is grounded properly. Make sure you don't have anything
like a space heater,heating pad, microwave,toaster etc. on the same circuit.

Shutting the machine off and then back on before the drives stop
can crash the heads and cause problems also.

There are UPS's that kick in when the power is above or below normal.
They cost a little more but they give you a constant supply of clean power.

gls858

 

[Guest]

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

William B. Lurie wrote:

>>
> Makes sense, Bruce. Thanks for the useful and educational comment.
>

You're welcome.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[johnf]

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

Hey, David, at least re-type it in Okker! Even I'm having trouble following
that reply.

--

johnf

> Well you must be really dumb as you are an idiot know and in twenty
> years you haven't learnt a single thing except to waste others time
> with your stupidity whech you seem proud off.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.uscricket.com
> "William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
>> since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
>> smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>>
>> Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
>> years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
>> an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
>> It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
>> a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
>> about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
>> doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
>> Bill Lurie
>>
>> Moshup Trail wrote:
>>> My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a
>>> number of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL
>>> errors. When trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be
>>> corrupt and we kept getting "cannot copy file" errors during the
>>> backup phase. Also, it seemed to be running very slowly. When we
>>> tried to run the disk defragger utility it quit very quickly with no
>>> explanation, and no defrag.
>>>
>>> After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems
>>> pointed to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility
>>> in the repair mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and
>>> told me it was repairing each one.
>>>
>>> My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why
>>> doesn't XP tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost
>>> no warning about this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP
>>> had many opportunities to let us know...
>>>
>>> 2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY
>>> restore the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>>
>>> 3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I
>>> am using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and
>>> the HD has not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would
>>> cause it, or taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

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

Hey, why would you bother? David is obviously a nerd who
didn't even understand the question!

johnf wrote:
> Hey, David, at least re-type it in Okker! Even I'm having trouble following
> that reply.
>
> --
>
> johnf
>
>
>>Well you must be really dumb as you are an idiot know and in twenty
>>years you haven't learnt a single thing except to waste others time
>>with your stupidity whech you seem proud off.
>>
>>--
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.uscricket.com
>>"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
>>news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
>>>since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
>>>smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>>>
>>>Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
>>>years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
>>>an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
>>>It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
>>>a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
>>>about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
>>>doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
>>>Bill Lurie
>>>
>>>Moshup Trail wrote:
>>>
>>>>My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a
>>>>number of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL
>>>>errors. When trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be
>>>>corrupt and we kept getting "cannot copy file" errors during the
>>>>backup phase. Also, it seemed to be running very slowly. When we
>>>>tried to run the disk defragger utility it quit very quickly with no
>>>>explanation, and no defrag.
>>>>
>>>>After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems
>>>>pointed to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility
>>>>in the repair mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and
>>>>told me it was repairing each one.
>>>>
>>>>My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why
>>>>doesn't XP tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost
>>>>no warning about this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP
>>>>had many opportunities to let us know...
>>>>
>>>>2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY
>>>>restore the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>>>
>>>>3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I
>>>>am using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and
>>>>the HD has not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would
>>>>cause it, or taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>> William B. Lurie
>
>
>


--
William B. Lurie

 

[johnf]

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

Wouldn't bet on it!

--

johnf

> Hey, why would you bother? David is obviously a nerd who
> didn't even understand the question!
>
> johnf wrote:
>> Hey, David, at least re-type it in Okker! Even I'm having trouble
>> following that reply.
>>
>> --
>>
>> johnf
>>
>>
>>>Well you must be really dumb as you are an idiot know and in twenty
>>>years you haven't learnt a single thing except to waste others time
>>>with your stupidity whech you seem proud off.
>>>
>>>--
>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>http://www.uscricket.com
>>>"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
>>>news:O7ofpjZ1EHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>Sort of bearing on this same subject, I'd extend it a bit, to ask why,
>>>>since XP 'knows' there are bad sectors, and is really wonderfully
>>>>smart, couldn't it just go ahead and fix them?
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I'm a little old-fashioned. It was less than 20
>>>>years ago that, when you bought a PC, a hard-disk drive was
>>>>an expensive 'optional extra'.... and I finally sprung for one.
>>>>It had a capacity of TEN MEGABYTES! Today's ubiquitous drives have
>>>>a thousand times as much storage, and more. But I'm awfully nervous
>>>>about the actual reliability of these monsters. Statistically, it
>>>>doesn't take much of an imperfection to turn into 'bad sectors'.
>>>>Bill Lurie
>>>>
>>>>Moshup Trail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>My mother brought her PC to me at Thanksgiving. It was displaying a
>>>>>number of problems. When trying to run a program she got missing DLL
>>>>>errors. When trying to upgrade to SP2 the download seemed to be
>>>>>corrupt and we kept getting "cannot copy file" errors during the
>>>>>backup phase. Also, it seemed to be running very slowly. When we
>>>>>tried to run the disk defragger utility it quit very quickly with no
>>>>>explanation, and no defrag.
>>>>>
>>>>>After many hours I finally began to realize that all these problems
>>>>>pointed to likely bad sectors on the HD. So I ran the chkdsk utility
>>>>>in the repair mode and it found numerous bad sectors on the HD and
>>>>>told me it was repairing each one.
>>>>>
>>>>>My questions: 1. If bad sectors are so bad (and they are!) why
>>>>>doesn't XP tell you sooner that you have a problem? There was almost
>>>>>no warning about this except the "cannot copy file" errors. Yet XP
>>>>>had many opportunities to let us know...
>>>>>
>>>>>2. Also, when chkdsk said it was "repairing" sectors, did it REALLY
>>>>>restore the data? Or did it just mark the sector bad and replace it?
>>>>>
>>>>>3. This is the second PC she's had this problem with (it's a Dell). I
>>>>>am using her first PC that had the problem - an old IBM PC 1410 and
>>>>>the HD has not deteriorated. Could she be doing something that would
>>>>>cause it, or taking thePC to places that would cause "bad sectors"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>> William B. Lurie
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> William B. Lurie