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

Shane
Sat May 20 14:08:16 CDT 2006

> 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

PaulFXH
Sat May 20 21:33:28 CDT 2006


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

Shane
Sun May 21 01:53:33 CDT 2006

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

Shane
Sun May 21 02:47:25 CDT 2006

> >> 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

Noel
Sun May 21 04:39:14 CDT 2006

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" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OKu7NrKfGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
>

Shane
Sun May 21 04:55:55 CDT 2006

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" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OKu7NrKfGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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

PaulFXH
Sun May 21 10:40:26 CDT 2006


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

PaulFXH
Sun May 21 11:22:13 CDT 2006


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

Shane
Sun May 21 11:56:27 CDT 2006

> 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, here:
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

Shane
Sun May 21 12:08:06 CDT 2006

>> 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.

Good!

> 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.

Yes <g>. It's been like that a long time, too! As long as I can remember
X-Setup has been thusly implicated!

> 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.

Agreed.

> Should the problem arise again with the Windows Defragger, it will be
> interesting to see if NDD picks up anything.

Yes. Like I say, I generally use Scandisk. NDD is a good backup or 2nd
opinion tool.

> 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.
>

A 2000 machine? If it has any 3rd party software of the period, still, that
might be problematic, as most was written for 98 and much didn't run that
well on ME.

>>
>> 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

No problem.

Shane

Shane
Sun May 21 12:49:46 CDT 2006

> to begin again. With Auto deselected, you have to allow this.

By which I mean, it won't run unless you permit it to!

Shane

PaulFXH
Sun May 21 13:49:58 CDT 2006


Shane escreveu:

> > 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, here:
> 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?

Other than doing (almost) back-to-back scandisk runs (both through
ScanDefrag---the first was the Full version and the second was a
Standard run). You mentioned earlier that sucessive scandisk runs may
sometimes be profitable. Maybe this was an occassion when they were.

>
> 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

PaulFXH
Sun May 21 14:13:21 CDT 2006


Shane escreveu:

> >> 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.
>
> Good!
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes <g>. It's been like that a long time, too! As long as I can remember
> X-Setup has been thusly implicated!

I presume there should be no problem if I actually do change the
time/date stamps the next time I run NDD just to prevent these
(probably unnecessary) error messages.

>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Should the problem arise again with the Windows Defragger, it will be
> > interesting to see if NDD picks up anything.
>
> Yes. Like I say, I generally use Scandisk. NDD is a good backup or 2nd
> opinion tool.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> A 2000 machine? If it has any 3rd party software of the period, still, that
> might be problematic, as most was written for 98 and much didn't run that
> well on ME.

The machine was actually built and delivered in mid-2003 which makes it
difficult to understand why WinME came pre-installed.
Also, the machine is very software-light. When I got here, there was
little more than Windows, Office 2000 and a few kids games installed.

>
> >>
> >> 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
>
> No problem.
>
> Shane

PaulFXH
Sun May 21 14:15:07 CDT 2006


Shane escreveu:

> > to begin again. With Auto deselected, you have to allow this.
>
> By which I mean, it won't run unless you permit it to!

Thanks, Shane
Yeah, I got that.
Paul

>
> Shane

Shane
Mon May 22 01:38:28 CDT 2006

>>> 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?
>
> Other than doing (almost) back-to-back scandisk runs (both through
> ScanDefrag---the first was the Full version and the second was a
> Standard run). You mentioned earlier that sucessive scandisk runs may
> sometimes be profitable. Maybe this was an occassion when they were.
>

Maybe. I'm sure it's not supposed to work that way, but it's far from
failsafe.

Shane

Shane
Mon May 22 01:47:36 CDT 2006

PaulFXH wrote:
> Shane escreveu:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes <g>. It's been like that a long time, too! As long as I can
>> remember X-Setup has been thusly implicated!
>
> I presume there should be no problem if I actually do change the
> time/date stamps the next time I run NDD just to prevent these
> (probably unnecessary) error messages.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> Should the problem arise again with the Windows Defragger, it will
>>> be interesting to see if NDD picks up anything.
>>
>> Yes. Like I say, I generally use Scandisk. NDD is a good backup or
>> 2nd opinion tool.
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> A 2000 machine? If it has any 3rd party software of the period,
>> still, that might be problematic, as most was written for 98 and
>> much didn't run that well on ME.
>
> The machine was actually built and delivered in mid-2003 which makes
> it difficult to understand why WinME came pre-installed.
> Also, the machine is very software-light. When I got here, there was
> little more than Windows, Office 2000 and a few kids games installed.
>


Ah! Yes, a little strange. But then I remember when Win ME came out many
oems gave the option of having either ME or 98 and I suppose, while the
timescale is greater it *may* make sense if looked at as the option of
having 9x or XP. Though I feel I'm clutching at straws here!

20G hard drives were becoming rare(r) by then, too. I mean they were
available, but it took a little effort to find one as small as 40G, even. I
guess the machine was specifically built as either a budget or a small,
relatively uncluttered 9x machine. Which isn't such a bad thing!

Shane

Noel
Mon May 22 04:36:48 CDT 2006

I know of one local shop that's still shipping new 9x machines (or were,
less than a year ago) - and not by special request, either!

--
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" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OqaahuWfGHA.4828@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ah! Yes, a little strange. But then I remember when Win ME came out many
> oems gave the option of having either ME or 98 and I suppose, while the
> timescale is greater it *may* make sense if looked at as the option of
> having 9x or XP. Though I feel I'm clutching at straws here!
>
> 20G hard drives were becoming rare(r) by then, too. I mean they were
> available, but it took a little effort to find one as small as 40G, even.
> I guess the machine was specifically built as either a budget or a small,
> relatively uncluttered 9x machine. Which isn't such a bad thing!
>
> Shane
>

Shane
Mon May 22 07:11:24 CDT 2006

Shows clutching at straws is not necessarily hopeless then!


Shane

Noel Paton wrote:
> I know of one local shop that's still shipping new 9x machines (or
> were, less than a year ago) - and not by special request, either!
>
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
> NG's "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OqaahuWfGHA.4828@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Ah! Yes, a little strange. But then I remember when Win ME came out
>> many oems gave the option of having either ME or 98 and I suppose,
>> while the timescale is greater it *may* make sense if looked at as
>> the option of having 9x or XP. Though I feel I'm clutching at straws
>> here! 20G hard drives were becoming rare(r) by then, too. I mean they
>> were
>> available, but it took a little effort to find one as small as 40G,
>> even. I guess the machine was specifically built as either a budget
>> or a small, relatively uncluttered 9x machine. Which isn't such a
>> bad thing! Shane

Noel
Mon May 22 07:43:36 CDT 2006

Problem is that they didn't have a clue how to set them up to protect a
noobie user - so two weeks later I got the panic call to de-infest the
machine.
All sorts of wonderful 'Look - isn't this a fast machine' crap on there...
e.g. MadOnion (they seem to put that on all their machines) - but nothing in
the way of security except a firewall that the user didn't understand - so
switched off (and I uninstalled, because I didn't understand it either!, and
they had a router anyhow, IIRC), and a 90day trial of some AV - which had
never been activated, let alone updated.
4 hours later, at least they could use the PC again - and I told them to go
back to the OEM and scream blue murder for putting Win98 on the box in the
first place!

--
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" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:exHPTkZfGHA.4892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Shows clutching at straws is not necessarily hopeless then!
>
>
> Shane
>
> Noel Paton wrote:
>> I know of one local shop that's still shipping new 9x machines (or
>> were, less than a year ago) - and not by special req