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
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have
XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS???? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
"Nil" wrote in message
... On 14 May 2012, wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general: I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. If you "can't see what it's doing" then you're either doing it wrong or blind. It's completely visible to me. - Open a CMD window (Start | Run | CMD) - Type Chkdsk C: at the prompt. - Observe. He must mean he can't see a little graphic of a hard drive spinning while it's scanning. ;-) -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
wrote in message
... I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS???? As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Scandisk wasn't "dropped", it never worked for, and wasn't made for, any WinNT-based operating system. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions, but it looks similar because it is a command line tool and it's behavior is modified by using command line switches, as in an old DOS program. It's most certainly not worthless, it simply has an "unfriendly" user interface. Microsoft Windows XP - Chkdsk http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d....mspx?mfr=true -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
In ,
glee typed: As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Actually that is Windows 2000 and later versions. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Actually scandisk was in both MSDOS v6.2x and Windows 9x. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions... On a side note, don't use CHKDSK or Undelete with MS-DOS v5.0 if you are using 256 byte sectors. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q80496/ -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:17:51 -0400, "glee"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS???? As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Scandisk wasn't "dropped", it never worked for, and wasn't made for, any WinNT-based operating system. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions, but it looks similar because it is a command line tool and it's behavior is modified by using command line switches, as in an old DOS program. It's most certainly not worthless, it simply has an "unfriendly" user interface. Microsoft Windows XP - Chkdsk http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d....mspx?mfr=true I've never run it from the command line. I originally clicked on START, then RUN, and typed in chkdsk.exe. After that I made a shortcut on the desktop to that file. Running it like that, only brought a very brief flash and it dropped off into the background, or vanished, or something like that. Just shows how screwed up MS is. They add tons of useless bloat to each newer OS, but cant make a simple disk scanning file run as a GUI. I thought that command line stuff went out with the end of the Dos era. It's not that I find it hard to do, after all, I said I still use Dos, but when I'm using windows, I want a click-it icon and get-er-done approach. I have never liked any NT Windows. I forced myself to use Win2000, and after awhile I got halfway comfortable with it. (and still use it). XP turned me off completely right from the start and still does. When I use my laptop that REQUIRES XP to use WIFI, I *only* use that computer for WIFI. Then I transfer anything I downloaded to my Win98/Win2000 (dual boot) desktop and do all my other computer stuff using Win98. I'm not saying this to start a flame war on an XP newsgroup, but I still think that Win98 was the best and last decent OS made by MS. The only reason I have Win2000 installed is because it fills in the gap, for Win98's top downfall, which is poor handling of USB ports. Many of my USB devices just cant work in 98. (Of course if MS had stuck with 98, they could have fixed that, or at least there would be drivers for all these devices). Win2000 does allow me to use my USB devices. I boot to 2000, use the USB devices to copy the stuff to my computer, then boot back to Win98 where I do all my computing. Win2000 is really just XP without all the bloat. I once copied Scandisk to my XP laptop, and when I clicked on it, I got an error message. At my elderly age, I'll likely use Win98 for the rest of my life. If not, I'll probably buy a Mac computer. I tolerate XP when I must, there is no way in hell that I'd use Vista or Win7. (Which from what I've seen is just more useless bloat added to XP and each version before it. I once read that the OS should remain invisible, and only provide a means to run the visible software installed to it. I guess MS has forgotten that, since these days the OSs are *in your face* annoying.... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , glee typed: As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Actually that is Windows 2000 and later versions. Not sure what you're saying... Windows NT 4.0 came with Chkdsk, I can't speak for NT 3.x but I believe it also did. No version of Windows NT came with Scandisk. Those are all *earlier* than Win2K. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Actually scandisk was in both MSDOS v6.2x and Windows 9x. I thought, based on the original post's comments, that we were discussing the GUI version of Scandisk from Windows 9x. No mention was made of the version from DOS 6.x, which is quite a different animal than the Windows version. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions... On a side note, don't use CHKDSK or Undelete with MS-DOS v5.0 if you are using 256 byte sectors. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q80496/ LOL... I don't think too many people will have to worry about that these days. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:17:51 -0400, "glee" wrote: wrote in message . .. I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS???? As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Scandisk wasn't "dropped", it never worked for, and wasn't made for, any WinNT-based operating system. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions, but it looks similar because it is a command line tool and it's behavior is modified by using command line switches, as in an old DOS program. It's most certainly not worthless, it simply has an "unfriendly" user interface. Microsoft Windows XP - Chkdsk http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d....mspx?mfr=true I've never run it from the command line. I originally clicked on START, then RUN, and typed in chkdsk.exe. After that I made a shortcut on the desktop to that file. Running it like that, only brought a very brief flash and it dropped off into the background, or vanished, or something like that. Just shows how screwed up MS is. They add tons of useless bloat to each newer OS, but cant make a simple disk scanning file run as a GUI. I thought that command line stuff went out with the end of the Dos era. It's not that I find it hard to do, after all, I said I still use Dos, but when I'm using windows, I want a click-it icon and get-er-done approach. I have never liked any NT Windows. I forced myself to use Win2000, and after awhile I got halfway comfortable with it. (and still use it). XP turned me off completely right from the start and still does. When I use my laptop that REQUIRES XP to use WIFI, I *only* use that computer for WIFI. Then I transfer anything I downloaded to my Win98/Win2000 (dual boot) desktop and do all my other computer stuff using Win98. I'm not saying this to start a flame war on an XP newsgroup, but I still think that Win98 was the best and last decent OS made by MS. The only reason I have Win2000 installed is because it fills in the gap, for Win98's top downfall, which is poor handling of USB ports. Many of my USB devices just cant work in 98. (Of course if MS had stuck with 98, they could have fixed that, or at least there would be drivers for all these devices). Win2000 does allow me to use my USB devices. I boot to 2000, use the USB devices to copy the stuff to my computer, then boot back to Win98 where I do all my computing. Win2000 is really just XP without all the bloat. I once copied Scandisk to my XP laptop, and when I clicked on it, I got an error message. At my elderly age, I'll likely use Win98 for the rest of my life. If not, I'll probably buy a Mac computer. I tolerate XP when I must, there is no way in hell that I'd use Vista or Win7. (Which from what I've seen is just more useless bloat added to XP and each version before it. I once read that the OS should remain invisible, and only provide a means to run the visible software installed to it. I guess MS has forgotten that, since these days the OSs are *in your face* annoying.... You could always go to WinME; you get the Win98 interface with a lot better hardware usage, and without that nasty resource limitation that BillW50 mentioned. Much as I like WinXP now, I went back to ME at least three times before figuring out the solution to the XP problem I was having. -- SC Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Actually that is Windows 2000 and later versions. Not sure what you're saying... Windows NT 4.0 came with Chkdsk, I can't speak for NT 3.x but I believe it also did. No version of Windows NT came with Scandisk. Those are all *earlier* than Win2K. You're the one you stated XP and later, not me. And Windows NT should be a given that they are NT OS. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Actually scandisk was in both MSDOS v6.2x and Windows 9x. I thought, based on the original post's comments, that we were discussing the GUI version of Scandisk from Windows 9x. No mention was made of the version from DOS 6.x, which is quite a different animal than the Windows version. If you ran scandisk from Windows, you got a GUI window which has a totally different interface than the one ran from DOS alone. Although it is the same program. And from what I remember, running scandisk from a command prompt looked just like the one from MS-DOS. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions... On a side note, don't use CHKDSK or Undelete with MS-DOS v5.0 if you are using 256 byte sectors. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q80496/ LOL... I don't think too many people will have to worry about that these days. I suppose not. Although one of my favorite older DOS versions were 2.11 and 3.21. And if your machine only had 640kb of RAM anyway, I believe I rather use 3.21 than any newer DOS version at any rate. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
In ,
SC Tom typed: You could always go to WinME; you get the Win98 interface with a lot better hardware usage, and without that nasty resource limitation that BillW50 mentioned. Much as I like WinXP now, I went back to ME at least three times before figuring out the solution to the XP problem I was having. Huh? ME don't have the System Resource problem? I ran ME for about a year and I didn't remember that one. And the one very bad thing about ME is that it is one of the buggiest Windows versions ever developed. And it is one of the least supported Windows version ever. Even still, it is possible to have ME running very stable. But I might be wrong, but I believe your best chance is running it on a machine that is designed for ME in the first place. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
In ,
Char Jackson typed: On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:27:28 -0500, wrote: I once read that the OS should remain invisible, and only provide a means to run the visible software installed to it. I guess MS has forgotten that, since these days the OSs are *in your face* annoying.... You wouldn't believe some of the things I once read. No it is true. OS were once created to be invisible and not get in the way of the user. This was great since the user had the freedom to do whatever they wanted too. It isn't that way with newer OS. As newer OS assumes the user is a total moron and slaps their hand if it thinks you shouldn't be doing something you shouldn't. And all this does is to make users dumber and dumber with each generation. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
wrote in
: On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:17:51 -0400, "glee" wrote: wrote in message . .. I still use Windows98 most of the time. I'm not fond of XP, but I have XP on my laptop computer, and must keep it to use the WIFI. One thing that really irks me about XP is that it no longer has Scandisk. Chkdsk is really a major pain to use, because it opens as a sort of "dos prompt", and I cant see what it's doing. At least Scandisk showed what was going on. If this is Microsoft's way of improving things, they sure screwed up on this one. I should mention that I both use, and still like MsDos. But I dont want chkdsk running underneath my desktop where I cant see what it's doing. Why did MS abandon Scandisk? Chkdsk was an archaic leftover from very early versions of MsDosm which was replaced by Scandisk, then they dropped it in favor of this worthless and annoying Chkdsk..... What is wrong with MS???? As Nil stated, you can see what's happening in Chkdsk at the command prompt. It's just not as user-friendly because it is a command line screen showing it. Windows XP and later versions of Windows are based on the WinNT kernel not the Win9x kernel, and come with Chkdsk only, always have. Scandisk was created for the Windows 9x family of operating systems (95/98/ME) and does not work in NT operating systems. Scandisk wasn't "dropped", it never worked for, and wasn't made for, any WinNT-based operating system. CHKDSK on NT systems is not the same as the old DOS versions, but it looks similar because it is a command line tool and it's behavior is modified by using command line switches, as in an old DOS program. It's most certainly not worthless, it simply has an "unfriendly" user interface. Microsoft Windows XP - Chkdsk http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...xp/all/proddoc s/en-us/chkdsk.mspx?mfr=true I've never run it from the command line. I originally clicked on START, then RUN, and typed in chkdsk.exe. After that I made a shortcut on the desktop to that file. Running it like that, only brought a very brief flash and it dropped off into the background, or vanished, or something like that. Just shows how screwed up MS is. They add tons of useless bloat to each newer OS, but cant make a simple disk scanning file run as a GUI. I thought that command line stuff went out with the end of the Dos era. It's not that I find it hard to do, after all, I said I still use Dos, but when I'm using windows, I want a click-it icon and get-er-done approach. I have never liked any NT Windows. I forced myself to use Win2000, and after awhile I got halfway comfortable with it. (and still use it). XP turned me off completely right from the start and still does. When I use my laptop that REQUIRES XP to use WIFI, I *only* use that computer for WIFI. Then I transfer anything I downloaded to my Win98/Win2000 (dual boot) desktop and do all my other computer stuff using Win98. I'm not saying this to start a flame war on an XP newsgroup, but I still think that Win98 was the best and last decent OS made by MS. The only reason I have Win2000 installed is because it fills in the gap, for Win98's top downfall, which is poor handling of USB ports. Many of my USB devices just cant work in 98. (Of course if MS had stuck with 98, they could have fixed that, or at least there would be drivers for all these devices). Win2000 does allow me to use my USB devices. I boot to 2000, use the USB devices to copy the stuff to my computer, then boot back to Win98 where I do all my computing. Win2000 is really just XP without all the bloat. I once copied Scandisk to my XP laptop, and when I clicked on it, I got an error message. At my elderly age, I'll likely use Win98 for the rest of my life. If not, I'll probably buy a Mac computer. I tolerate XP when I must, there is no way in hell that I'd use Vista or Win7. (Which from what I've seen is just more useless bloat added to XP and each version before it. I once read that the OS should remain invisible, and only provide a means to run the visible software installed to it. I guess MS has forgotten that, since these days the OSs are *in your face* annoying.... I had a hard time migrating away from Windows 3.1. I switched back from Windows 95 more than once. When I finally got Windows 98 SE working good I hung on to it forever. As far as I'm concerned ME was the biggest abortion M$ had ever come up with. Well, at least until ME2 (Vista) came along. Right now I'm running: Motherboard - Intel DP55KG CPU - Intel Core i7 K 875 @ 2.93Ghz Memory - 8 Gb (3.49 Gb in XP) Video - NVidia GeForce 210 (512) Dual-boot Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit, XP Pro SP3 I run Windows 7 about 2 hours each week to get the updates. It doesn't run a damn bit better than XP and won't run a lot of my software and one of my scanners. I record the 10 o'clock news in HD every night and watch it later. In XP, of course. If I happen to boot into Windows 7 and try to watch one of those recorded newscasts, it jumps, jerks, jitters, and stutters. I do kind of like XP now. The only reason I upgrade when I do is because I work on other people's computers (a retirement pastime) and have to keep up with the Joneses. I'm an old fart myself. Hopefully I'll wake up dead before XP is extinct! -- -- I'm retired. I was tired yesterday. I'm tired again today -- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Chkdsk/Scandisk
On 5/14/2012 6:47 PM, Retired wrote:
I had a hard time migrating away from Windows 3.1. I switched back from Windows 95 more than once. When I finally got Windows 98 SE working good I hung on to it forever. As far as I'm concerned ME was the biggest abortion M$ had ever come up with. Well, at least until ME2 (Vista) came along. I never had a problem going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 and up. ME was very tricky though. As it had taken a lot of work to get that one stable. And once you did, it was like a house of cards and don't upgrade drivers, OS, or anything. Just don't touch. Right now I'm running: Motherboard - Intel DP55KG CPU - Intel Core i7 K 875 @ 2.93Ghz Memory - 8 Gb (3.49 Gb in XP) Video - NVidia GeForce 210 (512) Dual-boot Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit, XP Pro SP3 I run Windows 7 about 2 hours each week to get the updates. It doesn't run a damn bit better than XP and won't run a lot of my software and one of my scanners. I record the 10 o'clock news in HD every night and watch it later. In XP, of course. If I happen to boot into Windows 7 and try to watch one of those recorded newscasts, it jumps, jerks, jitters, and stutters. Here I thought my Intel Core2 Duo T7400 just wasn't powerful enough for Windows 7 and recording videos. While XP records just wonderful on machines with far less power. I do kind of like XP now. The only reason I upgrade when I do is because I work on other people's computers (a retirement pastime) and have to keep up with the Joneses. I'm an old fart myself. Hopefully I'll wake up dead before XP is extinct! That is partly way I run Windows 7/8 too. Another is too make sure I am not messing out on anything. And I have been running Windows 7 since June 2009 and I can honestly say today I am not missing anything if I didn't run Windows 7/8 at all. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12 Centrino Core Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|