Check Disk

[Guest]

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

Hello Everyone,

I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal Scan
Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk. Now I am using
Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk destructive enough so as not to
use it once a month during my disk maintenance duties, or is it about as
safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?

Any advice is Greatly Appreciated.

Thank You So Much,

Wayne

 

[Guest]

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

I have never heard that any of them were harmful..I run my disk cleanup all
the time, no problems.

"Wayne" <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> wrote in message
news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com...
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal Scan
> Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk. Now I am
> using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk destructive enough so
> as not to use it once a month during my disk maintenance duties, or is it
> about as safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?
>
> Any advice is Greatly Appreciated.
>
> Thank You So Much,
>
> Wayne
>

 

[Guest]

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

In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com,
Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> typed:

> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand,
> Normal
> Scan Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan
> Disk.
> Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk
> destructive enough so as not to use it once a month during my
> disk
> maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as Normal Scan Disk
> is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?


First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk. Scandisk was
the program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has always
been the program that ran under Windows NT versions (including
Windows XP).

Regarding safety, they are pretty much equivalent. But running
either one monthly is overkill.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Wayne" <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> wrote:

>Hello Everyone,
>
>I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal Scan
>Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk. Now I am using
>Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk destructive enough so as not to
>use it once a month during my disk maintenance duties, or is it about as
>safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?
>
>Any advice is Greatly Appreciated.
>
>Thank You So Much,
>

I suspect that what you are alluding to is that in Windows 95/98/Me
the normal mode of Scandisk was to check only for the integrity of the
data structure whereas the thorough mode also did a sector by sector
test of the disk data surfaces as well. Because this involves more
disk activity and therefore more wear and tear to the drive mechanism
this could be considered as being more "destructive".

With Windows XP the CHKDSK command uses command line paramters to
specify the extent of the checking that is performed.

CHKDSK /F checks the integrity of the data structure of the hard drive
and is therefore comparable to the "normal" mode Scandisk in Windows
95/98/Me.

CHKDSK /R does both the data integrity check and also tests the disk
data surfaces. It is therefore comparable to the thorough mode
Scandisk.

Given the durability of modern hard drives I would not consider either
the thorough Scandisk or CHKDSK /R to be in any way destructive. The
concerns about the additional disk activity from these tests arose
during the very early years of computing when hard drives were both
very expensive and much more prone to premature failure than modern
drives.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

 

[Unknown]

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

OVERKILL???? Precisely why?
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:u92gyH8sFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com,
> Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> typed:
>
>> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal
>> Scan Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk.
>> Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk
>> destructive enough so as not to use it once a month during my disk
>> maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is
>> it somewhere in between ?
>
>
> First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk. Scandisk was the
> program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has always been the
> program that ran under Windows NT versions (including Windows XP).
>
> Regarding safety, they are pretty much equivalent. But running either one
> monthly is overkill.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>

 

[Guest]

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

In news:hGETe.1288$mj1.1198@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com,
Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:

> OVERKILL???? Precisely why?


Because it's unnecessary to run it that frequently.


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



> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:u92gyH8sFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com,
>> Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> typed:
>>
>>> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand,
>>> Normal
>>> Scan Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan
>>> Disk.
>>> Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk
>>> destructive enough so as not to use it once a month during my
>>> disk
>>> maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as Normal Scan
>>> Disk is ?
>>> Or is it somewhere in between ?
>>
>>
>> First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk. Scandisk
>> was the
>> program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has always
>> been
>> the program that ran under Windows NT versions (including
>> Windows
>> XP). Regarding safety, they are pretty much equivalent. But
>> running
>> either one monthly is overkill.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

Unknown wrote:
> OVERKILL???? Precisely why?

Precisely because if there are no file system problems that need to be
repaired, there's no reason to run Chkdsk. It isn't designed to be of
any use as a "preventative" maintenance routine.


--

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?)

Wayne wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal Scan
> Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk. Now I am using
> Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk destructive enough so as not to
> use it once a month during my disk maintenance duties, or is it about as
> safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?
>
> Any advice is Greatly Appreciated.
>
> Thank You So Much,
>
> Wayne
>
>


Chkdsk isn't "destructive," but there's no point in running it as
part of a monthly routine. Unless you are actually experiencing a
specific problem related to your hard drive's file system, there's no
real need to run Chkdsk. It's not designed to "fix" non-existent problems.


--

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

 

[Unknown]

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

Is that a proven fact or your opinion?
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:uf78AK9sFHA.3088@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> In news:hGETe.1288$mj1.1198@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com,
> Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:
>
>> OVERKILL???? Precisely why?
>
>
> Because it's unnecessary to run it that frequently.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:u92gyH8sFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com,
>>> Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal
>>>> Scan Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk.
>>>> Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk
>>>> destructive enough so as not to use it once a month during my disk
>>>> maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as Normal Scan Disk is ?
>>>> Or is it somewhere in between ?
>>>
>>>
>>> First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk. Scandisk was the
>>> program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has always been
>>> the program that ran under Windows NT versions (including Windows
>>> XP). Regarding safety, they are pretty much equivalent. But running
>>> either one monthly is overkill.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Unknown wrote:
> Is that a proven fact or your opinion?

It's a simple, blatantly obvious fact. Why run a repair tool if there
is no problem to be repaired?


--

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?)

In news:moHTe.1298$jE2.361@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:

> Is that a proven fact or your opinion?


You may take it any way you prefer. Feel free to ignore my advice
if you don't like it. I'm not interested in getting into a fight
with you over it.

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



> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:uf78AK9sFHA.3088@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> In news:hGETe.1288$mj1.1198@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com,
>> Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:
>>
>>> OVERKILL???? Precisely why?
>>
>>
>> Because it's unnecessary to run it that frequently.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:u92gyH8sFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@corp.supernews.com,
>>>> Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@olg.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I
>>>>> understand,
>>>>> Normal Scan Disk was less physically destructive than
>>>>> Thorough
>>>>> Scan Disk. Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is
>>>>> Check
>>>>> Disk destructive enough so as not to use it once a month
>>>>> during
>>>>> my disk maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as
>>>>> Normal Scan
>>>>> Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk.
>>>> Scandisk was
>>>> the program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has
>>>> always
>>>> been the program that ran under Windows NT versions
>>>> (including
>>>> Windows XP). Regarding safety, they are pretty much
>>>> equivalent.
>>>> But running either one monthly is overkill.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

Thank Everyone So Much.

I got the information I was looking for. I did not intend to start an
argument. I hope my question was not meant that way.

Thank You Again,

Wayne


....
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal Scan
> Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk. Now I am
> using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk destructive enough so
> as not to use it once a month during my disk maintenance duties, or is it
> about as safe as Normal Scan Disk is ? Or is it somewhere in between ?
>
> Any advice is Greatly Appreciated.
>
> Thank You So Much,
>
> Wayne
>