chkdsk
 

Forgotten the joys of chkdsk on windoze... Yawn.

chkdsk
 

On 1/26/2014 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Forgotten the joys of chkdsk on windoze... Yawn.

What version is she running? 3.1? She needs to turn automatic updates on.

chkdsk
 

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?

chkdsk
 

Hank wrote:
On 1/26/2014 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Forgotten the joys of chkdsk on windoze... Yawn.

What version is she running? 3.1? She needs to turn automatic updates on.

Yeah...that''ll do it. (Snerk)

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?

Just checking hard drive on wife's PC for bad clusters and verification of
free space.

chkdsk
 

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
 

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.

chkdsk
 

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.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 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.

There's a host of command line tools available. you can even batch them
if you want. I like the network tools. You'd be surprised how fast your
ISP level 1 techs will hand you off to level 2 if you are able to tell
him which IP address in the chain failing and why.

chkdsk
 

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.

chkdsk
 

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.

chkdsk
 

In article ,
says...

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.

I did on a heavily used 500gb drive on my Win7 system. 4 years old.
Took about 30 seconds. Zero bad files or clusters.
Harry's living in the past.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 11:33 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

I did on a heavily used 500gb drive on my Win7 system. 4 years old.
Took about 30 seconds. Zero bad files or clusters.
Harry's living in the past.


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?

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented, IMO.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented, IMO.



Ditto...

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:12:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented, IMO.


I am talking about the disk tools, not the virus program.
I have never seen them bundled in the software.
NDD is not in the Windoze XP load.


Ah. I read "Norton" and shuddered. It's difficult to completely remove
it once installed. I thought it was gone on my wife's laptop and she
started getting popups requesting that Norton be re-installed.
I finally found a third party program that completely got rid of
anything to do with the Norton anti-virus program.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented, IMO.


I hear you. Also AVG antivirus is worth avoiding. When you have it it's
slow and when you try to get rid of it it keeps on popping up.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:57 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented,
IMO.


I hear you. Also AVG antivirus is worth avoiding. When you have it it's
slow and when you try to get rid of it it keeps on popping up.

Been using AVG (free version) for years. I like it a lot and have
never noticed any ill affects or slow down of the computers, unlike with
Norton or McAfee.

chkdsk
 

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:12:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented, IMO.


I've decided based on some advice from an IT professional that Microsoft Security Essentials is the
way to go. Haven't had a virus yet. [Knock on wood.]

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 11:33 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

I did on a heavily used 500gb drive on my Win7 system. 4 years old.
Took about 30 seconds. Zero bad files or clusters.
Harry's living in the past.


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?


Don't you need to specify some paramaters when you run it from the
command prompt. I'll bet he forgot.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 1:16 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 11:33 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.

I did on a heavily used 500gb drive on my Win7 system. 4 years old.
Took about 30 seconds. Zero bad files or clusters.
Harry's living in the past.


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?


Don't you need to specify some paramaters when you run it from the
command prompt. I'll bet he forgot.

Yup. Just like using DOS

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 1:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:57 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it *has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented,
IMO.


I hear you. Also AVG antivirus is worth avoiding. When you have it it's
slow and when you try to get rid of it it keeps on popping up.

Been using AVG (free version) for years. I like it a lot and have
never noticed any ill affects or slow down of the computers, unlike with
Norton or McAfee.


I thought it was AVG that came bundled. Maybe it was McAffee. I don't know.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 1:23 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/27/2014 1:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:57 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:22:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/27/2014 10:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

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.


Generally you only get crosslinked and orphan clusters when you do
power dumps without a shutdown, closing all open files.
I think it is a worse problem with FAT drives than NTFS drives.

Norton DD does a whole lot better job with this than CHKDSK. It can
fix partition table problems and other beasies that make a PC a
doorstop.


Every computer we've had, including my wife's, have been allergic to
Norton. If a new computer comes with it I never enable it. If it
*has*
been enabled (like on a couple of my wife's computers) I purge the
disk
of any remnants of Norton. It caused more problems than it prevented,
IMO.


I hear you. Also AVG antivirus is worth avoiding. When you have it it's
slow and when you try to get rid of it it keeps on popping up.

Been using AVG (free version) for years. I like it a lot and have
never noticed any ill affects or slow down of the computers, unlike with
Norton or McAfee.


I thought it was AVG that came bundled. Maybe it was McAffee. I don't know.

More likely McAfee. I don't think AVG comes bundled with any computer.

chkdsk
 

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.
File verification completed.
13 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.
0 reparse records processed.
CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 3)...
119452 index entries processed.
Index verification completed.
0 unindexed files scanned.
0 unindexed files recovered.
CHKDSK is verifying security descriptors (stage 3 of 3)...
106496 file SDs/SIDs processed.
Security descriptor verification completed.
6479 data files processed.
CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
9256552 USN bytes processed.
Usn Journal verification completed.
Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.

488383487 KB total disk space.
423552356 KB in 77125 files.
31428 KB in 6480 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
196667 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
64603036 KB available on disk.

chkdsk
 

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.

chkdsk
 

In article ,
says...

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.

It's apples and oranges, since yours is a Vista box.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/2014 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:45:36 -0600, 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.
File verification completed.
13 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.
0 reparse records processed.
CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 3)...
119452 index entries processed.
Index verification completed.
0 unindexed files scanned.
0 unindexed files recovered.
CHKDSK is verifying security descriptors (stage 3 of 3)...
106496 file SDs/SIDs processed.
Security descriptor verification completed.
6479 data files processed.
CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
9256552 USN bytes processed.
Usn Journal verification completed.
Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.

488383487 KB total disk space.
423552356 KB in 77125 files.
31428 KB in 6480 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
196667 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
64603036 KB available on disk.

You only ran stage 1, Stage 2 is the slow one.
My C: has about 70,000 files and runs in about 20 seconds (1, 2, 3)




Look at his report again. It ran all three stages.

chkdsk
 

On 1/27/14, 3:43 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/27/2014 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:45:36 -0600, 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.
File verification completed.
13 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.
0 reparse records processed.
CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 3)...
119452 index entries processed.
Index verification completed.
0 unindexed files scanned.
0 unindexed files recovered.
CHKDSK is verifying security descriptors (stage 3 of 3)...
106496 file SDs/SIDs processed.
Security descriptor verification completed.
6479 data files processed.
CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
9256552 USN bytes processed.
Usn Journal verification completed.
Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.

488383487 KB total disk space.
423552356 KB in 77125 files.
31428 KB in 6480 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
196667 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
64603036 KB available on disk.

You only ran stage 1, Stage 2 is the slow one.
My C: has about 70,000 files and runs in about 20 seconds (1, 2, 3)




Look at his report again. It ran all three stages.



I just ran the Apple equivalent of chkdsk...took a minute, found nothing
to fix.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

chkdsk
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:45:36 -0600, 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.
File verification completed.
13 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.
0 reparse records processed.
CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 3)...
119452 index entries processed.
Index verification completed.
0 unindexed files scanned.
0 unindexed files recovered.
CHKDSK is verifying security descriptors (stage 3 of 3)...
106496 file SDs/SIDs processed.
Security descriptor verification completed.
6479 data files processed.
CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
9256552 USN bytes processed.
Usn Journal verification completed.
Windows has checked the file system and found no problems.

488383487 KB total disk space.
423552356 KB in 77125 files.
31428 KB in 6480 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
196667 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
64603036 KB available on disk.

You only ran stage 1, Stage 2 is the slow one.
My C: has about 70,000 files and runs in about 20 seconds (1, 2, 3)

I ran stages 1,2,3. Says so above.
"r" parameter wasn't needed, as I see no problems.

chkdsk
 

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.

chkdsk
 

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.


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

chkdsk
 

In article , says...


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.

Apple is about 10% of the market, if that.
Not many PC users need "tech support."
Most have friends or family who will help them with any issues, or they
just use the internet to get needed help.
I remeember talking to a manager during the early PC days.
His response to technical issues was a smug "Don't need to know that. I
have an Apple."
Nowadays my 87 year-old dad gets by with a Win PC with no problems.
Still doesn't know what a directory is, but pirates and converts movies
and music.
The only time you need tech support is a hardware failure.
And that's for somebody who doesn't build their own.
Apple is the "anti-PC" PC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

chkdsk
 

In article ,
says...


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.

One of sisters had a Dell and called tech support.
Don't remember what it was about. Win95 days.
Other than that I don't know one person who ever used tech support
for a PC. Don't know anybody with an Apple product.
A workmate bought an Apple for his daughter when she went off to
college. Remember him mentioning that.
Perhaps coincidentally, she's now an opera singer.

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.

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...