| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
chkdsk
|
|
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
On 1/27/14, 6:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
The only time you need tech support is a hardware failure. That's just silly. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:44:29 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/27/14, 4:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. I won't argue against the point that Macs are overpriced. But they are nicely designed and put together with more than than your Dells, HPs, et cetera, and the monitors on the iMacs are just plain superior. You're also paying for the fact that Apple provides damned good tech support by people who speak "Americanese," and you can get free help at the stores and Apple is pretty liberal about taking care of products beyond the warranty or apple care. Service costs. I've dealt with HP and Dell tech support in recent years. It's pretty grim. You often end up with someone who learned English as a third language and is reading off a script. No thanks. That's why you're better off buying a computer at a local shop that builds it on site. Then there's always someone to talk to, and it's someone who wants your business. |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
On 1/27/14, 6:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:44:29 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/27/14, 4:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. I won't argue against the point that Macs are overpriced. But they are nicely designed and put together with more than than your Dells, HPs, et cetera, and the monitors on the iMacs are just plain superior. You're also paying for the fact that Apple provides damned good tech support by people who speak "Americanese," and you can get free help at the stores and Apple is pretty liberal about taking care of products beyond the warranty or apple care. Service costs. I've dealt with HP and Dell tech support in recent years. It's pretty grim. You often end up with someone who learned English as a third language and is reading off a script. No thanks. That's why you're better off buying a computer at a local shop that builds it on site. Then there's always someone to talk to, and it's someone who wants your business. I bought one of those some years ago from some guys down Franconia road from you, toward Burke and across the street from Fresh Fields or whatever that upscale supermarket there is called. It was ok in terms of assembly, but I knew better than to get tech support there. That was my last "store bought" Windoze PC. I assembled the next few myself. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
On 1/27/2014 6:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/27/14, 6:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote: The only time you need tech support is a hardware failure. That's just silly. I don't know about that Harry. I've been using Windows based PCs since they came out. Before that I was using a Windows-like software package called GeoWorks on a PAL Laser 286. I've *never* had to call tech support for computer issues for anything. Internet service providers like Comcast, yes, but not to the manufacturer of any PC I've had. In the early days a problem was usually related to inexperience and usually resolved by trial and error. Now-a-days any info you may need is readily available on the 'net. The only call to tech support we've ever made was to Apple when we first fired up my wife's iMac and tried to use the external Smartdrive. That problem was stupidity on our part and was quickly resolved, not by Apple support but by a "Duh" on my part. I initially had a little confusion understanding the iMac that I have but so far have found the answers to any questions I've had on the Apple support forums. I have not had to even pose a question. Whatever question I've had has always been asked before me and the responses have been available to read. |
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:03:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/27/14, 6:57 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:44:29 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/27/14, 4:23 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. I won't argue against the point that Macs are overpriced. But they are nicely designed and put together with more than than your Dells, HPs, et cetera, and the monitors on the iMacs are just plain superior. You're also paying for the fact that Apple provides damned good tech support by people who speak "Americanese," and you can get free help at the stores and Apple is pretty liberal about taking care of products beyond the warranty or apple care. Service costs. I've dealt with HP and Dell tech support in recent years. It's pretty grim. You often end up with someone who learned English as a third language and is reading off a script. No thanks. That's why you're better off buying a computer at a local shop that builds it on site. Then there's always someone to talk to, and it's someone who wants your business. I bought one of those some years ago from some guys down Franconia road from you, toward Burke and across the street from Fresh Fields or whatever that upscale supermarket there is called. It was ok in terms of assembly, but I knew better than to get tech support there. That was my last "store bought" Windoze PC. I assembled the next few myself. I know the place. It's been gone quite a while. I didn't much like it when it was there. |
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
|
|
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/26/2014 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: Forgotten the joys of chkdsk on windoze... Yawn. I had not heard of or used chkdsk since Windows 3.1 What are you looking for, anyway? A reaction, of course. |
|
#40
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
chkdsk
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/27/14, 9:20 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:08:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/26/14, 8:54 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On 26 Jan 2014 21:56:01 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: Forgotten the joys of chkdsk on windoze... Yawn. What the hell are you doing with chkdsk? Windows for Workgroups? That's an old one, for sure. Chkdsk is one of the tools that is easily available on Windoze 7. It's still useful, if maddeningly slow. It can find and repair simple problems that might come up on hard drives running Windoze. The 'chkdsk' tool has been around for a long time. Glad you found it and hope it helps. I'm surprised so many of you windoze acolytes don't run it at least once a month in order to seek out and repair those bad clusters the OS creates. I don't know Harry. For kicks I just ran chkdsk on this five year old Vista laptop for the first time since I bought it. Took about 20-25 minutes and reported zero bad files or clusters. I've used this computer a lot. He's trolling... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
