If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Hi
I've been using Diskeeper Lite for some time on my WinMe machine primarily because the Windows defragger refuses to run except in Safe Mode. (In any case, I understand that the Windows defragger is merely a watered-down version of Diskeeper). Yesterday, I installed ScanDefrag and ran it. When it got to its third stage, the defragger refused to run complaining that there was evidence of disk damage which should be cleared up by running ScanDisk. However, as my computer had just emerged from a 9 hour (apparently sucessful) ScanDisk session as part of the ScanDefragger program, this recommendation was somewhat startling. Although I'm not very concerned about the non-operation of the Windows defragger as I use Diskeeper, I'm wondering is the problem a little deeper. Can anybody help me to know whether I should worry about this and, if so, what can I do about it? TIA Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Mode. (In any case, I understand that the Windows defragger is merely
a watered-down version of Diskeeper). In XP it is. In 9x it's a sort-of watered-down version of Norton Speed Disk. Yesterday, I installed ScanDefrag and ran it. When it got to its third stage, the defragger refused to run complaining that there was evidence of disk damage which should be cleared up by running ScanDisk. However, as my computer had just emerged from a 9 hour (apparently sucessful) ScanDisk session as part of the ScanDefragger program, this recommendation was somewhat startling. There is effectively no point running ScanDisk in Thorough Mode. It's only use is when you have reason to suspect the disk is on the way out. Certainly it's not worth setting it to run in Thorough Mode in ScanDefrag. Although I'm not very concerned about the non-operation of the Windows defragger as I use Diskeeper, I'm wondering is the problem a little deeper. Can anybody help me to know whether I should worry about this and, if so, what can I do about it? I imagine the refusal to run even occurs after a bad shutdown, when the only 'damage' is likely to be misreporting of amount of Free Space. Boot to DOS with your EBD and run ScanDisk from there. See what that does. btw, there are times when ScanDisk won't run from DOS, requiring you to boot to Windows and run it from there. It isn't very helpful if you can't boot Windows! But Norton Disk Doctor will run from DOS and is one of those few Norton tools as good or better than what come with Windows. Most of the time I use ScanDisk, as NDD tends to be more thorough than one wants, ie fixing things that are only a problem to pedants (but you do have control over what it fixes). iow ScanDisk is good enough for normal use (by contrast I use Norton Speed Disk rather than Disk Defragmenter, and have done for years, in 9x wouldn't use anything else! Though in XP I use Diskeeper). If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip, two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know. Shane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Shane escreveu: Mode. (In any case, I understand that the Windows defragger is merely a watered-down version of Diskeeper). In XP it is. In 9x it's a sort-of watered-down version of Norton Speed Disk. Thanks for the reply, Shane. I've only been using WinMe for 10 weeks (after many years on WinXP) so I'm not totally acquainted with its peculiarities. Yesterday, I installed ScanDefrag and ran it. When it got to its third stage, the defragger refused to run complaining that there was evidence of disk damage which should be cleared up by running ScanDisk. However, as my computer had just emerged from a 9 hour (apparently sucessful) ScanDisk session as part of the ScanDefragger program, this recommendation was somewhat startling. There is effectively no point running ScanDisk in Thorough Mode. It's only use is when you have reason to suspect the disk is on the way out. Certainly it's not worth setting it to run in Thorough Mode in ScanDefrag. The thorough mode scandisk was only to celebrate the inaugural run of ScanDefrag on this computer. Its now set at Standard mode for scandisk. Actually, when I ran ScanDefrag again today with scandisk in Standard Mode, it said that problems were detected but all fixed (I have never seen scandisk run in the Std Mode WITHOUT giving this message). Nevertheless, the subsequent defrag run went through perfectly without a hitch which is the first time I have seen the Windows Defragger run through on this machine for about 2 months (I use DiskeeperLite). Could it be that this worked because I had earlier today run DiskeeperLite so that the Windows Defragger didn't come across anything too exacting? Although I'm not very concerned about the non-operation of the Windows defragger as I use Diskeeper, I'm wondering is the problem a little deeper. Can anybody help me to know whether I should worry about this and, if so, what can I do about it? I imagine the refusal to run even occurs after a bad shutdown, when the only 'damage' is likely to be misreporting of amount of Free Space. Boot to DOS with your EBD and run ScanDisk from there. See what that does. btw, there are times when ScanDisk won't run from DOS, requiring you to boot to Windows and run it from there. It isn't very helpful if you can't boot Windows! But Norton Disk Doctor will run from DOS and is one of those few Norton tools as good or better than what come with Windows. Most of the time I use ScanDisk, as NDD tends to be more thorough than one wants, ie fixing things that are only a problem to pedants (but you do have control over what it fixes). iow ScanDisk is good enough for normal use (by contrast I use Norton Speed Disk rather than Disk Defragmenter, and have done for years, in 9x wouldn't use anything else! Though in XP I use Diskeeper). Does the fact that you use Norton Speed Disk on 9x result from the Windows defragger being unreliable in these OSs (as it seems to be on mine)? Or is there any other possible reason why the Windows Defragger is almost unusable (except in SAFE MODE) on my machine? Note that, before installing DiskeeperLite, I always ran ScanDisk after receiving the disk error message when the Defragger refused to run. Scandisk always reported that errors were found and ALL were fixed. Nevertheless, the Defragger still just would not complete and gave the same disk error message. (It's for this reason that I was surprised to see that it actually did go all the way today as part of ScanDefrag) If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip, two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know Yes, please. Address is: paul_hackett2ATyahooDOTcomDOTbr Thanks Paul Shane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
PaulFXH wrote:
Shane escreveu: Mode. (In any case, I understand that the Windows defragger is merely a watered-down version of Diskeeper). In XP it is. In 9x it's a sort-of watered-down version of Norton Speed Disk. Thanks for the reply, Shane. I've only been using WinMe for 10 weeks (after many years on WinXP) so I'm not totally acquainted with its peculiarities. Yesterday, I installed ScanDefrag and ran it. When it got to its third stage, the defragger refused to run complaining that there was evidence of disk damage which should be cleared up by running ScanDisk. However, as my computer had just emerged from a 9 hour (apparently sucessful) ScanDisk session as part of the ScanDefragger program, this recommendation was somewhat startling. There is effectively no point running ScanDisk in Thorough Mode. It's only use is when you have reason to suspect the disk is on the way out. Certainly it's not worth setting it to run in Thorough Mode in ScanDefrag. The thorough mode scandisk was only to celebrate the inaugural run of ScanDefrag on this computer. Its now set at Standard mode for scandisk. Actually, when I ran ScanDefrag again today with scandisk in Standard Mode, it said that problems were detected but all fixed (I have never seen scandisk run in the Std Mode WITHOUT giving this message). Nevertheless, the subsequent defrag run went through perfectly without a hitch which is the first time I have seen the Windows Defragger run through on this machine for about 2 months (I use DiskeeperLite). Could it be that this worked because I had earlier today run DiskeeperLite so that the Windows Defragger didn't come across anything too exacting? I wouldn't have thought so. Usually the different defraggers - to paraphrase Noel - each have their own idea of where to put the data on the disk, with the usual consequence that if you run one type after another, the 2nd takes a longer time as it's virtually undoing what the first one did. Possibly, with the Diskeeper philosophy of distributing data across the disk rather than contiguously this is minimised. If you look at the Scandisk log (hopefully set to Append rather than Replace!) perhaps you'll see what the problem was. Also look for .chk files in the root. But if it was refusing to run due to disk damage, that's ScanDisk finding it (it runs for the first 8 or 10 percent - I forget exactly - of Disk Defragmenter). I mentioned misreported Free Space as a result of 'bad shutdowns', but I imagine you'd have said if ScanDisk was running at boot. Other than that, though, it's hard to put a finger on what it might have been balking at. Cross-linked files? - generally, but not inevitably, the consequence of a crash. And files with names Windows doesn't like are the other errors typically encountered. I believe - iirc - you can have a situation where there are a large amount of cross-linked files and ScanDisk completes a run without fixing them all. Run it again immediately after and it'll find more of the same. This is what I suspect has happened. I don't recall what ScanDisk typically does when it meets a file with a name it can't handle (other than fail to fix it!). Whether running a different defragger could deal with it is an interesting question. On the face of it, no, because defraggers don't do disk repairs, they invoke ScanDisk (or Norton Disk Doctor) if required. However, while it's generally ill-advised to do a defrag while disk errors remain, I wonder if a file with a name Windows can't handle can be deleted by a non-MS defragger? After all, such files can be written in Windows, so just because ScanDisk can't handle them, doesn't mean nothing can. Although I've only, to date, been able to correct such errors from DOS, using Norton's (again!) Disk Edit. btw you know of the Win ME Shutdown issues? The main one I've found is failure to shut down if not disconnecting from the internet first, ie the screen goes black and it hangs requiring the power button to be used and causing ScanDisk to run at next boot. Because the screen goes black, many people think it has shut down, although odds are if one hangs around one will hear the fans still spinning and notice the cursor flashing (though not the latter if in the habit of switching the monitor off too!). Although I'm not very concerned about the non-operation of the Windows defragger as I use Diskeeper, I'm wondering is the problem a little deeper. Can anybody help me to know whether I should worry about this and, if so, what can I do about it? I imagine the refusal to run even occurs after a bad shutdown, when the only 'damage' is likely to be misreporting of amount of Free Space. Boot to DOS with your EBD and run ScanDisk from there. See what that does. btw, there are times when ScanDisk won't run from DOS, requiring you to boot to Windows and run it from there. It isn't very helpful if you can't boot Windows! But Norton Disk Doctor will run from DOS and is one of those few Norton tools as good or better than what come with Windows. Most of the time I use ScanDisk, as NDD tends to be more thorough than one wants, ie fixing things that are only a problem to pedants (but you do have control over what it fixes). iow ScanDisk is good enough for normal use (by contrast I use Norton Speed Disk rather than Disk Defragmenter, and have done for years, in 9x wouldn't use anything else! Though in XP I use Diskeeper). Does the fact that you use Norton Speed Disk on 9x result from the Windows defragger being unreliable in these OSs (as it seems to be on mine)? Speed Disk is usually faster, I find - at least once it has rearranged the disk to it's liking! I reckon it's the best *contiguous* data arranging defragger, although Executive Software have their own ideas about where data should be placed for the most efficient operation, so who knows? Speed Disk certainly has more options, though whether any of them matter is a matter of opinion. I've just always found Speed Disk faster than Disk Defragmenter - more apparent the bigger the disk - and post-defrag performance noticeably zippier, which is the most important thing of course! I wouldn't use Speed Disk in XP, it's not the same. Not that my 2000 version will run there anyway. Also, my 2000 version apparently has problems, at least in Windows, with disks larger than about 32G. Due to the no. of hidden volumes on disk 1 and the fact I never touch the last half of the 2nd disk, it's okay. But it's worth mentioning that a volume size of between 3G and 8G is ideal for Win ME. 2G is possible but I feel one spends too much time managing it. But whichever it sure reduces the time these maintenance tasks take! Or is there any other possible reason why the Windows Defragger is almost unusable (except in SAFE MODE) on my machine? The same constant disk writes that cause ScanDisk to start over and over also cause Disk Defragmenter to do so. These two reasons are why ScanDefrag was written in the first place. It's a problem in Win ME - though one I eliminated early, so long ago I scarcely remember it! But it's virtually certain to be something that's running in the background, which you can either decide is unnecessary and stop, or a pita and uninstall, or use ScanDefrag or Safe Mode. Or, for instance, using PC Mag's Startup Cop saving different Startup profiles, load a minimal one, reboot, run defrag then reload the default profile and reboot again (far less hassle than doing it with msconfig, or restarting in Safe Mode). Always-on Cable modem was always cited, with unplugging it recommended prior to maintenance sessions. Note that, before installing DiskeeperLite, I always ran ScanDisk after receiving the disk error message when the Defragger refused to run. Scandisk always reported that errors were found and ALL were fixed. Nevertheless, the Defragger still just would not complete and gave the same disk error message. (It's for this reason that I was surprised to see that it actually did go all the way today as part of ScanDefrag) If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip, two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know Yes, please. Address is: paul_hackett2ATyahooDOTcomDOTbr Thanks Paul Ok, on it's way. Sorry I don't have answers so much as speculation! Shane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip,
two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know Yes, please. Address is: paul_hackett2ATyahooDOTcomDOTbr Thanks Paul Ok, on it's way. Sorry I don't have answers so much as speculation! Just adding for the benefit of anyone who sees this and thinks they too would like to try NDD. It didn't originally occur to me that someone using XP for years before running Win ME will likely have a C: drive larger than 32G, in which case the 2000 DOS version of NDD won't complete (it'll halt with a General Protection Fault, though Ctrl-C will get the prompt back). It is best for a variety of reasons to have a Win ME C: drive of 8G or a little less, and certainly not one larger than 32G! But if you're not planning to partition a disk that is larger than 32G, forget about running Norton Disk Doctor 2000 on it! Shane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
You also forgot the other rider for Speed Disk, Shane - DO NOT set the
option to 'Optimise the swapfile' - it will place limits on the size of your virtual memory that are almost certain to cause problems when dealing with graphics files. -- Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's "Shane" wrote in message ... It is best for a variety of reasons to have a Win ME C: drive of 8G or a little less, and certainly not one larger than 32G! But if you're not planning to partition a disk that is larger than 32G, forget about running Norton Disk Doctor 2000 on it! Shane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Never has done with this version, Noel. But that's why I add *2000* - which
I never used to do when touting SD - just in case it *is* entirely version specific. In NU2000, Norton Optimization Wizard - which runs Speed Disk the same way Maintenance Wizard runs Disk Defragmenter - *does* sod the swap file up. SD defrags it. NOW (as in *Don't Use NOW!*) does the system.ini editing! NOW always was tempting for the addition of optimizing the registry, unnecessary as it was - but then that's NU/NSW in a nutshell, eh? Or in transition from nutshell to nutcase. Shane Noel Paton wrote: You also forgot the other rider for Speed Disk, Shane - DO NOT set the option to 'Optimise the swapfile' - it will place limits on the size of your virtual memory that are almost certain to cause problems when dealing with graphics files. Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's "Shane" wrote in message ... It is best for a variety of reasons to have a Win ME C: drive of 8G or a little less, and certainly not one larger than 32G! But if you're not planning to partition a disk that is larger than 32G, forget about running Norton Disk Doctor 2000 on it! Shane |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Shane escreveu: PaulFXH wrote: Shane escreveu: Mode. (In any case, I understand that the Windows defragger is merely a watered-down version of Diskeeper). In XP it is. In 9x it's a sort-of watered-down version of Norton Speed Disk. Thanks for the reply, Shane. I've only been using WinMe for 10 weeks (after many years on WinXP) so I'm not totally acquainted with its peculiarities. Yesterday, I installed ScanDefrag and ran it. When it got to its third stage, the defragger refused to run complaining that there was evidence of disk damage which should be cleared up by running ScanDisk. However, as my computer had just emerged from a 9 hour (apparently sucessful) ScanDisk session as part of the ScanDefragger program, this recommendation was somewhat startling. There is effectively no point running ScanDisk in Thorough Mode. It's only use is when you have reason to suspect the disk is on the way out. Certainly it's not worth setting it to run in Thorough Mode in ScanDefrag. The thorough mode scandisk was only to celebrate the inaugural run of ScanDefrag on this computer. Its now set at Standard mode for scandisk. Actually, when I ran ScanDefrag again today with scandisk in Standard Mode, it said that problems were detected but all fixed (I have never seen scandisk run in the Std Mode WITHOUT giving this message). Nevertheless, the subsequent defrag run went through perfectly without a hitch which is the first time I have seen the Windows Defragger run through on this machine for about 2 months (I use DiskeeperLite). Could it be that this worked because I had earlier today run DiskeeperLite so that the Windows Defragger didn't come across anything too exacting? I wouldn't have thought so. Usually the different defraggers - to paraphrase Noel - each have their own idea of where to put the data on the disk, with the usual consequence that if you run one type after another, the 2nd takes a longer time as it's virtually undoing what the first one did. Possibly, with the Diskeeper philosophy of distributing data across the disk rather than contiguously this is minimised. If you look at the Scandisk log (hopefully set to Append rather than Replace!) perhaps you'll see what the problem was. Also look for .chk files in the root. But if it was refusing to run due to disk damage, that's ScanDisk finding it (it runs for the first 8 or 10 percent - I forget exactly - of Disk Defragmenter). Thanks for the reply Shane. ScanDisk log WAS set to Replace but is now set to Append. he root directory contained two fragmented files that were formed during the second scandisk run of yesterday (as part of ScanDefrag). I mentioned misreported Free Space as a result of 'bad shutdowns', but I imagine you'd have said if ScanDisk was running at boot. Other than that, though, it's hard to put a finger on what it might have been balking at. Cross-linked files? - generally, but not inevitably, the consequence of a crash. ScanDisk WILL run at boot if shutdown was caused, for example, by a power outage or the plug was pulled because of hanging/freezing. However, this did not happen yesterday. And files with names Windows doesn't like are the other errors typically encountered. I believe - iirc - you can have a situation where there are a large amount of cross-linked files and ScanDisk completes a run without fixing them all. Run it again immediately after and it'll find more of the same. This is what I suspect has happened. I don't recall what ScanDisk typically does when it meets a file with a name it can't handle (other than fail to fix it!). Whether running a different defragger could deal with it is an interesting question. On the face of it, no, because defraggers don't do disk repairs, they invoke ScanDisk (or Norton Disk Doctor) if required. However, while it's generally ill-advised to do a defrag while disk errors remain, I wonder if a file with a name Windows can't handle can be deleted by a non-MS defragger? After all, such files can be written in Windows, so just because ScanDisk can't handle them, doesn't mean nothing can. Although I've only, to date, been able to correct such errors from DOS, using Norton's (again!) Disk Edit. Nevertheless, I have seen quite a number of times (including yesterday as I already reported) where the Windows Defragger refuses to run because of alleged disk problems but DiskeeperLite runs sucessfully immediately afterward. btw you know of the Win ME Shutdown issues? The main one I've found is failure to shut down if not disconnecting from the internet first, ie the screen goes black and it hangs requiring the power button to be used and causing ScanDisk to run at next boot. Because the screen goes black, many people think it has shut down, although odds are if one hangs around one will hear the fans still spinning and notice the cursor flashing (though not the latter if in the habit of switching the monitor off too!). This is very interesting as I have seen this quite a number of times on this machine. Can I take it that this can be remedied simply by ensuring the internet connection is cut before shutting down? Although I'm not very concerned about the non-operation of the Windows defragger as I use Diskeeper, I'm wondering is the problem a little deeper. Can anybody help me to know whether I should worry about this and, if so, what can I do about it? I imagine the refusal to run even occurs after a bad shutdown, when the only 'damage' is likely to be misreporting of amount of Free Space. Boot to DOS with your EBD and run ScanDisk from there. See what that does. btw, there are times when ScanDisk won't run from DOS, requiring you to boot to Windows and run it from there. It isn't very helpful if you can't boot Windows! But Norton Disk Doctor will run from DOS and is one of those few Norton tools as good or better than what come with Windows. Most of the time I use ScanDisk, as NDD tends to be more thorough than one wants, ie fixing things that are only a problem to pedants (but you do have control over what it fixes). iow ScanDisk is good enough for normal use (by contrast I use Norton Speed Disk rather than Disk Defragmenter, and have done for years, in 9x wouldn't use anything else! Though in XP I use Diskeeper). Does the fact that you use Norton Speed Disk on 9x result from the Windows defragger being unreliable in these OSs (as it seems to be on mine)? Speed Disk is usually faster, I find - at least once it has rearranged the disk to it's liking! I reckon it's the best *contiguous* data arranging defragger, although Executive Software have their own ideas about where data should be placed for the most efficient operation, so who knows? Speed Disk certainly has more options, though whether any of them matter is a matter of opinion. I've just always found Speed Disk faster than Disk Defragmenter - more apparent the bigger the disk - and post-defrag performance noticeably zippier, which is the most important thing of course! I wouldn't use Speed Disk in XP, it's not the same. Not that my 2000 version will run there anyway. Also, my 2000 version apparently has problems, at least in Windows, with disks larger than about 32G. Due to the no. of hidden volumes on disk 1 and the fact I never touch the last half of the 2nd disk, it's okay. But it's worth mentioning that a volume size of between 3G and 8G is ideal for Win ME. 2G is possible but I feel one spends too much time managing it. But whichever it sure reduces the time these maintenance tasks take! Or is there any other possible reason why the Windows Defragger is almost unusable (except in SAFE MODE) on my machine? The same constant disk writes that cause ScanDisk to start over and over also cause Disk Defragmenter to do so. These two reasons are why ScanDefrag was written in the first place. It's a problem in Win ME - though one I eliminated early, so long ago I scarcely remember it! But it's virtually certain to be something that's running in the background, which you can either decide is unnecessary and stop, or a pita and uninstall, or use ScanDefrag or Safe Mode. Or, for instance, using PC Mag's Startup Cop saving different Startup profiles, load a minimal one, reboot, run defrag then reload the default profile and reboot again (far less hassle than doing it with msconfig, or restarting in Safe Mode). OK but the last three times I ran ScanDisk here, it miraculously worked fine (other than two or three 'false starts' where it advances to 2-3% completion then goes back to 0% before finally getting underway and reaching 100%). Always-on Cable modem was always cited, with unplugging it recommended prior to maintenance sessions. Because I'm on Dial-Up down here, it's very unlikely I ever ran a defrag while the internet was connected. Note that, before installing DiskeeperLite, I always ran ScanDisk after receiving the disk error message when the Defragger refused to run. Scandisk always reported that errors were found and ALL were fixed. Nevertheless, the Defragger still just would not complete and gave the same disk error message. (It's for this reason that I was surprised to see that it actually did go all the way today as part of ScanDefrag) If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip, two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know Yes, please. Address is: paul_hackett2ATyahooDOTcomDOTbr Thanks Paul Ok, on it's way. Sorry I don't have answers so much as speculation! Many thanks Paul Shane |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Shane escreveu: If you want to try the DOS version of NDD, Paul, it's a 329K zip, two files to extract to Windows\Command, then boot to DOS and type NDD. The version from Norton Utilities 2000 (came with an Iomega Zip drive!). Let me know Yes, please. Address is: paul_hackett2ATyahooDOTcomDOTbr Thanks Paul Ok, on it's way. Sorry I don't have answers so much as speculation! Just adding for the benefit of anyone who sees this and thinks they too would like to try NDD. It didn't originally occur to me that someone using XP for years before running Win ME will likely have a C: drive larger than 32G, in which case the 2000 DOS version of NDD won't complete (it'll halt with a General Protection Fault, though Ctrl-C will get the prompt back). Shane, thanks for the NDD which I received by e-mail. I ran this from DOS and it went through fine. It did pick up errors in the Directory Structure which were not fixed. However, they seem to me to be trivial and are all associated with the X-SetUp package that I received from a certain source about two weeks ago. Before the NDD run started I was given the option of changing the time/date on a number of files (all except one from the X-SetUp package). These latter I did not change while the one other I did change. Only those files on which I decided NOT to change the date/time gave the directories processing errors. So, even if this were a problem of any gravity, it seems it would be simple to fix. All-in-all, this suggests I have no disk errors. Should the problem arise again with the Windows Defragger, it will be interesting to see if NDD picks up anything. This machine has NEVER had anything but WinMe installed as OS. My WinXP experience was on another computer a very long way from here (but to which I will be temporarily returning in a couple of weeks). Here the HDD size is 20GB (or a little less) so NDD worked fine. It is best for a variety of reasons to have a Win ME C: drive of 8G or a little less, and certainly not one larger than 32G! But if you're not planning to partition a disk that is larger than 32G, forget about running Norton Disk Doctor 2000 on it! That's interesting! I'll have to look into partitioning the 20GB HDD here. Thanks again Paul Shane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Windows defragger concerns in WinMe
Nevertheless, I have seen quite a number of times (including yesterday
as I already reported) where the Windows Defragger refuses to run because of alleged disk problems but DiskeeperLite runs sucessfully immediately afterward. Yes. Well, that's similar to when in DOS Scandisk won't run but NDD will. Sure, it happens, but it doesn't mean it's been 'fixed' (and maybe the diagnosis is wrong to begin with anyway, like you say 'alleged'?). But the pertinent point, perhaps, is that if there are disk problems, you shouldn't be running any defragger, as it's less likely to 'fix' them than to make them irreparable short of re-installation! I don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with Disk Defragmenter, though Diskeeper Lite is probably better. btw you know of the Win ME Shutdown issues? The main one I've found is failure to shut down if not disconnecting from the internet first, ie the screen goes black and it hangs requiring the power button to be used and causing ScanDisk to run at next boot. Because the screen goes black, many people think it has shut down, although odds are if one hangs around one will hear the fans still spinning and notice the cursor flashing (though not the latter if in the habit of switching the monitor off too!). This is very interesting as I have seen this quite a number of times on this machine. Can I take it that this can be remedied simply by ensuring the internet connection is cut before shutting down? There are - apparently - many situations in Win ME that can cause shutdown problems. Best to look, or at least start, he http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/shutdown.htm. All I can say, specifically, is that hitting Start/Shutdown without going offline first, is a very likely cause, but not necessarily the only one. If you do that, and have this hanging, black screen, flashing cursor, then going offline first - and waiting a few secs, if simply disconnecting is not enough - will solve it if there are no other shutdown issues also present! How's that for hedging my bets! g Win 98SE, in my experience, shuts down just fine. It's definately a Win ME thing. Or is there any other possible reason why the Windows Defragger is almost unusable (except in SAFE MODE) on my machine? The same constant disk writes that cause ScanDisk to start over and over also cause Disk Defragmenter to do so. These two reasons are why ScanDefrag was written in the first place. It's a problem in Win ME - though one I eliminated early, so long ago I scarcely remember it! But it's virtually certain to be something that's running in the background, which you can either decide is unnecessary and stop, or a pita and uninstall, or use ScanDefrag or Safe Mode. Or, for instance, using PC Mag's Startup Cop saving different Startup profiles, load a minimal one, reboot, run defrag then reload the default profile and reboot again (far less hassle than doing it with msconfig, or restarting in Safe Mode). OK but the last three times I ran ScanDisk here, it miraculously worked fine (other than two or three 'false starts' where it advances to 2-3% completion then goes back to 0% before finally getting underway and reaching 100%). Without having changed anything? The 'false starts' are par for the course. btw, I for one deselect repair automatically (except in ScanDefrag), as it enables finding out which files are damaged before 'fixing' them. Set to repair automatically, if fixing many crosslinked files Scandisk will repeatedly restart, for once it has repaired one it has to begin again. With Auto deselected, you have to allow this. Selected it will look like continual restarting due to interference - although you won't want to okay every operation of a serious crosslink situation, you'd still be there a week later! Shane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Win98SE constant problems-ole32,shell32,other | MEB | General | 14 | January 15th 06 04:39 AM |
Can't connect to my network printer | Martin Healy | Networking | 8 | July 6th 05 10:35 PM |
WINDOWS GURU - DAN GOOKIN | AAH | General | 0 | June 22nd 05 09:37 AM |
error loading explorer.exe. SHLWAPI.dll | Gary | General | 4 | October 20th 04 04:08 AM |
FAQ: Win98 users: Upgrading to WinXP, IE6, etc. | JM | Setup & Installation | 6 | July 26th 04 01:44 PM |