problem with scandisk or what?

Delboy asked :-

> Any ideas O wise Ones?

Don't know about the 'O wise Ones' bit, but IIRC, I don't think that two
(or more?) bites of the scanning session are particularly unusual - although
I don't remember the actual sizes of sectors per bite.

OTOH - maybe a (DOS) surface scan and even a HDD manufacturers test utility
scan would be a worthwhile exercise - if only for peace-of-mind. If you
can't think of any other valid reason for an 'improper shutdown', then
perhaps your HDD is trying to warn you of a potential (impending?)
catastrophe. But better yet - a coincidence <g> Back-up your data warning
notwithstanding!

Why not disable ZA (or uninstall it) for the duration of your tests -
elimination purposes - and see if things act differently.

Not sure if I would recommend stopping a forced (recovery) SD, despite the
infuriatingly long time it may take to complete. It generally has a good
reason to run to completion.

BTW - just spotted your addendum before I posted. I doubt that the disk is
2/3 full is a factor in this issue. As a matter of interest, how old is the
HDD - not that its age is always an indication of its wellbeing <g>

Good luck

Mart


"Delboy" <delboy.hoy.spam-banned RemoveThis @btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a5SdnTypitZ5DX3YnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d@bt.com...
> Yesterday after an apparently normal close down, next time I re started,
> the
> computer went into scandisk "improper shutdown", but with the thorough
> option dotted, automatically fix errors ticked and all options greyed. SD
> went through about 3/4 of the bars, then checked some 28,600 sectors, then
> started to scan 1,800,000 sectors.
>
> Does this every time. Also the same in Safe Mode.
>
> Scandisk in DOS mode shows no errors (surface scan not done - will still
> be
> here tomorrow if I let it scan).
>
> Any ideas out there? Are the 28,600 sectors scanned first "different" to
> the
> 1,800,000 sectors scanned secondly.
>
> I did have a similar happening some months? a year ago but I "cured" it by
> SD in DOS, then SD in safe mode, allowing the first 28,600 to check
> thoroughly and stopping SD, then rebooting normally. (improper SD not
> appearing.)
>
> BTW just killing SD in normal mode prevents ZoneAlarm from opening - get a
> yellow X. Opening up ZA from the yellow X gives me a "System Error" notice
> where the open programs list appears.
>
> Any ideas O wise Ones?
> --
>
> Delboy
>
> Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the
> stupid
> multitude.
>
> Leonardo Da Vinci
>
>

Hi Mart

HDD is some 7 yo. Being an optimist (or a pessimist?) the hdd is 2/3 empty.
Tried looking on Samsung's sites for test util, can't find util for my model
no. (sv6004h according to Belarc).

Will let dos sd run overnight and see what happens. <y..a..w..n..
zzzzzzzzz.....)

tks for suggestions.

--

Delboy

Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid
multitude.

Leonardo Da Vinci
"Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23b$MU7EWHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Delboy asked :-
>
> > Any ideas O wise Ones?
>
> Don't know about the 'O wise Ones' bit, but IIRC, I don't think that two
> (or more?) bites of the scanning session are particularly unusual -
although
> I don't remember the actual sizes of sectors per bite.
>
> OTOH - maybe a (DOS) surface scan and even a HDD manufacturers test
utility
> scan would be a worthwhile exercise - if only for peace-of-mind. If you
> can't think of any other valid reason for an 'improper shutdown', then
> perhaps your HDD is trying to warn you of a potential (impending?)
> catastrophe. But better yet - a coincidence <g> Back-up your data warning
> notwithstanding!
>
> Why not disable ZA (or uninstall it) for the duration of your tests -
> elimination purposes - and see if things act differently.
>
> Not sure if I would recommend stopping a forced (recovery) SD, despite the
> infuriatingly long time it may take to complete. It generally has a good
> reason to run to completion.
>
> BTW - just spotted your addendum before I posted. I doubt that the disk is
> 2/3 full is a factor in this issue. As a matter of interest, how old is
the
> HDD - not that its age is always an indication of its wellbeing <g>
>
> Good luck
>
> Mart
>
>
> "Delboy" <delboy.hoy.spam-banned.RemoveThis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a5SdnTypitZ5DX3YnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d@bt.com...
> > Yesterday after an apparently normal close down, next time I re started,
> > the
> > computer went into scandisk "improper shutdown", but with the thorough
> > option dotted, automatically fix errors ticked and all options greyed.
SD
> > went through about 3/4 of the bars, then checked some 28,600 sectors,
then
> > started to scan 1,800,000 sectors.
> >
> > Does this every time. Also the same in Safe Mode.
> >
> > Scandisk in DOS mode shows no errors (surface scan not done - will still
> > be
> > here tomorrow if I let it scan).
> >
> > Any ideas out there? Are the 28,600 sectors scanned first "different" to
> > the
> > 1,800,000 sectors scanned secondly.
> >
> > I did have a similar happening some months? a year ago but I "cured" it
by
> > SD in DOS, then SD in safe mode, allowing the first 28,600 to check
> > thoroughly and stopping SD, then rebooting normally. (improper SD not
> > appearing.)
> >
> > BTW just killing SD in normal mode prevents ZoneAlarm from opening - get
a
> > yellow X. Opening up ZA from the yellow X gives me a "System Error"
notice
> > where the open programs list appears.
> >
> > Any ideas O wise Ones?
> > --
> >
> > Delboy
> >
> > Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the
> > stupid
> > multitude.
> >
> > Leonardo Da Vinci
> >
> >
>
>

Delboy,

7 years? - Wow, well done!

Try :-

HUTIL 203.exe

Covers your HDD at :-
Utilities | Hard Disk Drive - Spinpoint V30 (11th down the list)
http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/utilities/hutil.htm

Don't say I didn't warn you with my 'get-out-of-jail' card (>> Back-up your
data warning), but be also aware of the red disclaimer in note 3

Mart



"Delboy" <delboy.hoy.spam-banned.RemoveThis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:I7KdnbfWG5IoJn3YRVnytwA@bt.com...
> Hi Mart
>
> HDD is some 7 yo. Being an optimist (or a pessimist?) the hdd is 2/3
> empty.
> Tried looking on Samsung's sites for test util, can't find util for my
> model
> no. (sv6004h according to Belarc).
>
> Will let dos sd run overnight and see what happens. <y..a..w..n..
> zzzzzzzzz.....)
>
> tks for suggestions.
>
> --
>
> Delboy
>
> Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the
> stupid
> multitude.
>
> Leonardo Da Vinci
> "Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23b$MU7EWHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Delboy asked :-
>>
>> > Any ideas O wise Ones?
>>
>> Don't know about the 'O wise Ones' bit, but IIRC, I don't think that two
>> (or more?) bites of the scanning session are particularly unusual -
> although
>> I don't remember the actual sizes of sectors per bite.
>>
>> OTOH - maybe a (DOS) surface scan and even a HDD manufacturers test
> utility
>> scan would be a worthwhile exercise - if only for peace-of-mind. If you
>> can't think of any other valid reason for an 'improper shutdown', then
>> perhaps your HDD is trying to warn you of a potential (impending?)
>> catastrophe. But better yet - a coincidence <g> Back-up your data
>> warning
>> notwithstanding!
>>
>> Why not disable ZA (or uninstall it) for the duration of your tests -
>> elimination purposes - and see if things act differently.
>>
>> Not sure if I would recommend stopping a forced (recovery) SD, despite
>> the
>> infuriatingly long time it may take to complete. It generally has a good
>> reason to run to completion.
>>
>> BTW - just spotted your addendum before I posted. I doubt that the disk
>> is
>> 2/3 full is a factor in this issue. As a matter of interest, how old is
> the
>> HDD - not that its age is always an indication of its wellbeing <g>
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
>> "Delboy" <delboy.hoy.spam-banned.RemoveThis@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:a5SdnTypitZ5DX3YnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d@bt.com...
>> > Yesterday after an apparently normal close down, next time I re
>> > started,
>> > the
>> > computer went into scandisk "improper shutdown", but with the thorough
>> > option dotted, automatically fix errors ticked and all options greyed.
> SD
>> > went through about 3/4 of the bars, then checked some 28,600 sectors,
> then
>> > started to scan 1,800,000 sectors.
>> >
>> > Does this every time. Also the same in Safe Mode.
>> >
>> > Scandisk in DOS mode shows no errors (surface scan not done - will
>> > still
>> > be
>> > here tomorrow if I let it scan).
>> >
>> > Any ideas out there? Are the 28,600 sectors scanned first "different"
>> > to
>> > the
>> > 1,800,000 sectors scanned secondly.
>> >
>> > I did have a similar happening some months? a year ago but I "cured" it
> by
>> > SD in DOS, then SD in safe mode, allowing the first 28,600 to check
>> > thoroughly and stopping SD, then rebooting normally. (improper SD not
>> > appearing.)
>> >
>> > BTW just killing SD in normal mode prevents ZoneAlarm from opening -
>> > get
> a
>> > yellow X. Opening up ZA from the yellow X gives me a "System Error"
> notice
>> > where the open programs list appears.
>> >
>> > Any ideas O wise Ones?
>> > --
>> >
>> > Delboy
>> >
>> > Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the
>> > stupid
>> > multitude.
>> >
>> > Leonardo Da Vinci
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

<snipped for brevity>

Tks for the link Mart. Have downloaded it. Time for a backup session to my
cdrw disks methinks.

Ran scandisk from DOS including surface scan last night (12 hours, yawn -
zzzzz - boring) no problems, no bad sectors, no nothing. Over wrote
scandisk.log - re booted to safe mode - yippee doo! no scandisk - rebooted
to normal mode - wahey! no scandisk. have saved scandisk.log as
scandisk_good.log might give me a quick fix (computer not caffeine or ...).

If HDD is on last legs (BTW Belarc's s.m.a.r.t. link says HDD is good), not
sure whether to replace HDD or junk computer (it's only a1300meg processor
and shows its age but like Heirloom old but still working) and get a new
one. (athlon dual core?) but I do not want Vista for at least 6-12 months.

I suppose XP will still be supported for 7 years (like ME)after its
superseding ...

Anyway tks again for help, hints and link

--

Delboy

Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid
multitude.

Leonardo Da Vinci

> junk computer (it's only
> a1300meg processor and shows its age

That's a lot faster than the Win Me box I have here which is a 333MHz
Celeron. A 1300MHz PC can easily run XP and must have been near top of
range (if not above it <vbg>) seven years ago.

> I suppose XP will still be supported for 7 years (like ME)after its
> superseding ...

XP support is and will be much better than that for Win Me which entered
extended support after about four years and ended all support six years
after release. XP was released in late 2001 and Microsoft say it will be
supported until 2014, the main reason for this being that unlike Win Me it
was designed as a business operating system.

The original RTM version of XP went out of support in 2003? and SP1 in
October 2006 however XP is now at SP2 and an SP3 is scheduled for the
second half of 2008. Note however that you will no longer be able to buy
copies of XP after the end of January 2008 (one year after the general
release of Vista). XP enters what is called extended support in April 2009
which will then continue for five years until April 2014 which is a lot
longer after initial release than was the case for Win Me. XP Home was
initially planned as having a much shorter support life but earlier this
year Microsoft announced that Home's support would now match that for
Professional.
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby.RemoveThis@gmail.com


Delboy <delboy.hoy.spam-banned.RemoveThis@btinternet.com> wrote:

> <snipped for brevity>
>
> Tks for the link Mart. Have downloaded it. Time for a backup session
> to my cdrw disks methinks.
>
> Ran scandisk from DOS including surface scan last night (12 hours,
> yawn - zzzzz - boring) no problems, no bad sectors, no nothing. Over
> wrote scandisk.log - re booted to safe mode - yippee doo! no
> scandisk - rebooted to normal mode - wahey! no scandisk. have saved
> scandisk.log as scandisk_good.log might give me a quick fix (computer
> not caffeine or ...).
>
> If HDD is on last legs (BTW Belarc's s.m.a.r.t. link says HDD is
> good), not sure whether to replace HDD or junk computer (it's only
> a1300meg processor and shows its age but like Heirloom old but still
> working) and get a new one. (athlon dual core?) but I do not want
> Vista for at least 6-12 months.
>
> I suppose XP will still be supported for 7 years (like ME)after its
> superseding ...
>
> Anyway tks again for help, hints and link

<also snipped for the same reason>

Like Mike M's WinMe box, I too have WinMe running on a 233 MHz Laptop and a
200 MHz Desktop (which almost ran XP - very slowly!) so as Mike said, 1300
MHz should not be a problem for an XP upgrade.

Regarding the HDD, maybe it just needed that 'scandisk completion' to clear
the cobwebs and glitches. Well done and good luck with it.

Mart