BoatBanter.com

On 1/27/2014 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:39:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 1:45 PM, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

30 seconds to run a check on a 500Gb drive? That's too fast to be
believable.

My Vista laptop only has a 285Gb drive and it took almost 25 minutes.
When chkdsk first started, it just sat there for a while doing nothing.
I was about to close it thinking it wasn't doing anything when it
suddenly started reporting "stage 1 of 3" activities, then "stage 2 of
3", etc. It displayed percentage of completion of the disk scan as it
worked.

Are you sure you didn't shut it down before it even started?

All right, I was off. I brought out the stopwatch. 32.18 seconds.

C:\Windows\system32chkdsk d:
The type of the file system is NTFS.
Volume label is WD500-S1-500GB-Part.

WARNING! F parameter not specified.
Running CHKDSK in read-only mode.

CHKDSK is verifying files (stage 1 of 3)...
106496 file records processed.

First big difference: Mine reported 604373 files processed.

File verification completed.
13 large file records processed.

2nd big difference: Mine reported 2212 large file records

0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.

Everything else is basically the same with differences for hard drive
volume name, capacity, etc. Still took about 20 minutes to complete.
When it finished it automatically shut down before I could copy and
paste the results and I didn't bother going looking for the log.

Interesting because I am currently only using about 130Gb of the 285Gb
drive.

You can put a redirect on the command line and write the output to a
file

chkdsk c: c:\ myfile.txt

Then your output will be in "myfile.txt" in the root directory of the
C: drive.
The other way to see the output is to open the command prompt and
enter it there instead of using the run line.
If you want the time stamp
type in prompt $p$g$t
(gets you time, directory and the "" prompt)

Thanks. I sorta thought it might automatically write it to a log file
but I didn't bother looking for it. That's the first time I've used
chkdsk since Windows 3.1 I think.

The Apple vs Windows debate is really meaningless IMO. Whatever works
for you and meets your needs is what you become familiar with and tend
to like.

My take on the critics of each is this: Mac users represent about 30
percent of computer users last I knew. That's up about 10 percent from
10 years ago. Originally Macs were considered to be "hack proof" mainly
because the hackers targeted the much larger Windows user base. Those
using Macs unfortunately propagated an "elitist" attitude, looking down
their noses at the lowly Windows users. In many ways it was justified.
Microsoft went through many iterations of their Windows OS systems
trying to stay ahead of the hackers. With the introduction of XP and
now Win 7, they have produced a decent OS that is not as prone to hacker
attacks. Win 8 seems to be a more flashy version of Win 7 to me.

Apple users on the other hand can no longer make the claim of being hack
proof. There have been at least two incidences of an Apple OS being
hacked in the past year.

Then you have the millions who use Windows everyday yet continue to
bitch and complain about "Windoze". I don't know why. I think it's
because it became "cool" to be anti-windows years ago and the trend
continues even though we probably use some form of Windows XP or above
everyday, even if we don't go near a computer. Virtually every ATM
machine in the USA is running Windows XP as are cash registers, point of
sale outlets and even ...(gasp) ... commercial airplanes.

I suspect many of the complaints are due to people buying cheap,
underpowered computers that struggle to run anything but expect it to be
a top performer because it is new. That's one thing you really can't do
with a Mac. Even the least expensive laptops are designed to run fine on
the Apple OSX.

The only complaint I have about Apple computers is that I think they and
their accessories are way over-priced. Apple wants $79 for a DVD
writer/CD player for the iMac. I took Harry's advice and bought a
Samsung that looks almost identical, works fine and cost half of what
Apple wants for theirs.