Re: Check Disk
- From: "Unknown" <Unknown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:42:10 GMT
Is that a proven fact or your opinion?
"Ken Blake" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uf78AK9sFHA.3088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In news:hGETe.1288$mj1.1198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Unknown <Unknown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
>
>> OVERKILL???? Precisely why?
>
>
> Because it's unnecessary to run it that frequently.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:u92gyH8sFHA.3452@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> In news:11htqb0f528mrb6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>> Wayne <NOwaynerrSPAM@xxxxxxx> typed:
>>>
>>>> I am used to using Scan Disk with Win 98SE. As I understand, Normal
>>>> Scan Disk was less physically destructive than Thorough Scan Disk.
>>>> Now I am using Check Disk for the first time. Is Check Disk
>>>> destructive enough so as not to use it once a month during my disk
>>>> maintenance duties, or is it about as safe as Normal Scan Disk is ?
>>>> Or is it somewhere in between ?
>>>
>>>
>>> First, there is no such thing as *normal* scan disk. Scandisk was the
>>> program that ran under Windows 9X versions. Chkdsk has always been
>>> the program that ran under Windows NT versions (including Windows
>>> XP). Regarding safety, they are pretty much equivalent. But running
>>> either one monthly is overkill.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Check Disk
- From: Ken Blake
- Re: Check Disk
- From: Bruce Chambers
- Re: Check Disk
- References:
- Check Disk
- From: Wayne
- Re: Check Disk
- From: Ken Blake
- Re: Check Disk
- From: Unknown
- Re: Check Disk
- From: Ken Blake
- Check Disk
- Prev by Date: Re: Activation of numeric pad
- Next by Date: Re: How to avoid standby?
- Previous by thread: Re: Check Disk
- Next by thread: Re: Check Disk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|