[dencorso]

Quote

Is the ME version available anywhere?

You'll have to grab the DOS version of scandisk.exe from Win ME from inside MDGx's package SCANFRAG (link), because only the windows version is present in BHDD30e.ZIP. But, of course, you don't need to actually install the SCANFRAG package (myself, I don't like both Win ME meconfig and regenv32, and stick to the older Win 98 msconfig), get it just to grab scandisk.exe from inside it. Update: SCANFRAG is no longer needed, get just BHDD31e.ZIP here, because it has everything needed inside.

You can also run the DOS Norton Disk Doctor (from Norton Utilities 2002 rev..10E), findable in your Norton System Works 2004 disk. If you decide to make it run instead of SCANDISK.EXE on reboot after a crash, just copy NDD.EXE to \WINDOWS\COMMAND\ and rename it to SCANDISK.ALT (this is the official Microsoft way of doing it!) and that's it.

I believe that both Win ME SCANDISK.EXE and NDD.EXE (2002 rev..10E), will work OK with all your partitions.

I also think you'll find much interesting reading in this thread, too, although some of what is said there has already been said here: Problems-with-1-TB-RAID

I think this is clear to you, Multibooter, but for the sake of those for whom this is still a confused issue, I think it's advisable to state this fact once more: SCANDISK, DEFRAG, CVT, NDD and (Norton) Speed Disk depend on partition size and their limit is the maximum FAT-32 size they can represent internally. LLXX's patched ESDI_506.PDR and VIASRAID.MPD deal with 48-bit access, and are dependent on total disk size: if all your PATA and SATA disks are smaller than 137 GB (=128 GiB), then you're on the safe side, if not you need them, regardless of the size of the partitions you use. For USB and Firewire disks, this problem doesn't exist.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 09 June 2009 - 02:09 AM

[Multibooter]

dencorso, on Jun 19 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

You'll have to grab the DOS version of scandisk.exe from Win ME from inside MDGx's package SCANFRAG (link), because only the windows version is present in BHDD30e.ZIP.

Thanks for the link. I'll be back in the US in Sept. and will try it then on a resized partition >137GB. On a USB HDD I cannot try out the DOS version of ScanDisk: Although the motherboard I am using has USB legacy support, I have disabled it because when USB legacy support is enabled, the system freezes when the BIOS is checking the connected USB HDD (750GB, 4 primary partitions).

This leads to the next can of worms, USB legacy support at the BIOS level: What is the largest USB HDD capacity for USB legacy support on Asus motherboards? Can you have more than 1 partition? What partition types are recognized? (ExtendedX/Logical, Primary, FAT16, FAT32, FAT32 EXT). Is there a conflict if you have a USB HDD driver installed & the USB HDD is already recognized at the BIOS level? I remember vaguely, when I had USB legacy support enabled, Win98 came up with Windows Explorer showing about 20 HDD icons.

This post has been edited by Multibooter: 20 June 2008 - 03:14 AM

[Multibooter]

dencorso, on Jun 19 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

You can also run the DOS Norton Disk Doctor (from Norton Utilities 2002 rev..10E), findable in your Norton System Works 2004 disk. If you decide to make it run instead of SCANDISK.EXE on reboot after a crash, just copy NDD.EXE to \WINDOWS\COMMAND\ and rename it to SCANDISK.ALT (this is the official Microsoft way of doing it!) and that's it.

I believe that both Win ME SCANDISK.EXE and NDD.EXE (2002 rev..10E), will work OK with all your partitions.

The DOS Scandisk.exe does NOT look at the backup File Allocation Table, while the Windows Scandskw.exe looks at both Primary and backup File Allocation Table and determines which File Allocation Table is better in case of errors.

Is NDD.exe (DOS) smarter than Scandisk.exe (DOS), does it look at both file allocation tables? In that case, the renaming trick would be rather useful.

[dencorso]

Multibooter, on Jun 24 2008, 12:49 AM, said:

Is NDD.exe (DOS) smarter than Scandisk.exe (DOS), does it look at both file allocation tables? In that case, the renaming trick would be rather useful.

NDD is far smarter than SCANDISK... See this comment by Joep van Steen (author of DiskPatch) in this page reprinted from the October 2003 issue of PC Update (link)... Of course, DiskPatch may also be an alternative (but is not for free). While NDD is not for free either, I know you already have it.

Joep van Steen said:

NDD is designed to replace and go beyond what SCANDISK does. SCANDISK does NOT care about your data ... it cares about a consistent file system, so if something is inconsistent it will try to restore the file system to a consistent state. If this can be done by deleting data it will often do so. It should be able to repair a corrupt boot sector, but I feel the problem with NDD is that it will inspect everything ... the MBR, partition tables, boot sectors etc.. Problem with that is, that when you (the program) are presented with loads of info it gets more difficult to decide what's wrong or right. Problem increases when you see things that you (the program) are not programmed for (like mixed Windows/Linux drives).

Of course, in the quoted text, Joep is making his case as to why DiskPatch is more reliable than NDD, and in the process also tells why NDD is better than SCANDISK.
It is also noteworthy that Symantec actually recomends using the DOS version of NDD, instead of the Win version, to perform the most low-level repairs:

from p. 131 of the NSW 2002 Prof. Ed. Users Guide said:

To repair corrupted boot records, use the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor; do not use the Windows version. The Windows version diagnoses the problem, but will not repair the boot record as well as the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 24 June 2008 - 01:40 AM

[Marius '95]

dencorso, on Jun 24 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

Joep van Steen said:

NDD is designed to replace and go beyond what SCANDISK does. SCANDISK does NOT care about your data ... it cares about a consistent file system, so if something is inconsistent it will try to restore the file system to a consistent state. If this can be done by deleting data it will often do so. It should be able to repair a corrupt boot sector, but I feel the problem with NDD is that it will inspect everything ... the MBR, partition tables, boot sectors etc.. Problem with that is, that when you (the program) are presented with loads of info it gets more difficult to decide what's wrong or right. Problem increases when you see things that you (the program) are not programmed for (like mixed Windows/Linux drives).

Of course, in the quoted text, Joep is making his case as to why DiskPatch is more reliable than NDD, and in the process also tells why NDD is better than SCANDISK.

I do not agree.
- NDD fixes cross linked files by truncating both files before the cross link instead of making copies like Scandisk.
- NDD 2001 sometimes incorrectly detects cross linked files on DriveSpace volumes where Scandisk doesn't find anything wrong and the files are fine. Sometimes it finds a single cross linked file (a file cross linked with nothing else). I don't know about NDD 2002+ because I stoped using it on DriveSpace.
- Scandisk DOES compare FATs; it just doesn't say it like NDD. I had errors like mismatched FAT copies and Scandisk detected and fixed them.

This post has been edited by Marius '95: 24 June 2008 - 10:33 AM

[Multibooter]

Marius'95, on Jun 24 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

- NDD fixes cross linked files by truncating both files before the cross link instead of making copies like Scandisk.

- NDD 2001 sometimes incorrectly detects cross linked files on DriveSpace volumes where Scandisk doesn't find anything wrong and the files are fine. Sometimes it finds a single cross linked file (a file cross linked with nothing else).

My favorite disk utility was Disk Fixer (of V-COM System Suite v6.0.14 or Fix-It Utilities 6), but I changed over to NDD 2004 about 3 years ago, when an external USB HDD of 250 GB (in reality about 232GB) was too large for Disk Fixer. Here an old note of mine, in my system log of Jan.2004:
"Disk Fixer Is a better repair utility than Norton Disk Doctor or ScanDisk:
NDD crashed when attempting to fix H: when a lot of files were cross-linked (err msg: "cannot copy - access denied")
ScanDisk refused even to start diagnosing, err msg: "not enough memory"
DiskFixer did it
Addendum in Feb.04: the HDD may have been damaged by the sp.exe virus, identified on 25.Jan.04
This is a reason why to have several different utility packages installed - in case of a virus infection maybe one still works! "

By the way, the infection with sp.exe was the only malware infection I had in the last 10 years, Kaspersky at that time had only this short description: "September 11", now no more description.

Disk Fixer under Win98 does NOT work on a 250GB USB HDD, it terminates after nearly completing the File Allocation Table check
Under WinXP, however, Disk Fixer does work Ok with a 250 GB USB HDD, 232GB FAT32 partition. So maybe Loew's 137GB patch can put good old Disk Fixer back to work under Win98? But since the HDD was a USB drive, could it be that the drive capacity limitation of Disk Fixer was caused by the Win98 USB driver for the HDD (WinXP does not need a special USB driver)? Is there a different USB disk/partition size limitation if I use an external enclosure with a different USB driver?

Quote

- Scandisk DOES compare FATs; it just doesn't say it like NDD. I had errors like mismatched FAT copies and Scandisk detected and fixed them.

Livingston & Straub in "Windows ME Secrets" (p. 1091) state that the DOS version of ScanDisk always uses the primary copy of the FAT (unless ScanDisk finds a physical disk error), while the Windows version of ScanDisk uses both primary & backup FATs. You must have run Scandisk under Windows when Scandisk detected and fixed mismatched FATs.

This post has been edited by Multibooter: 25 June 2008 - 02:21 AM

[Marius '95]

Multibooter, on Jun 25 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

Livingston & Straub in "Windows ME Secrets" (p. 1091) state that the DOS version of ScanDisk always uses the primary copy of the FAT (unless ScanDisk finds a physical disk error), while the Windows version of ScanDisk uses both primary & backup FATs. You must have run Scandisk under Windows when Scandisk detected and fixed mismatched FATs.

No. DOS version.
It's true that most of the time, Scandisk decides that FAT #1 is good and fixes FAT #2 by making a copy of #1. This might be because FAT #1 is updated first and sometimes a computer crash occurs before FAT #2 is updated, not because Scandisk doesn't use FAT #2.

This post has been edited by Marius '95: 25 June 2008 - 07:36 AM

[Multibooter]

Marius'95, on Jun 25 2008, 06:36 AM, said:

No. DOS version.
It's true that most of the time, Scandisk decides that FAT #1 is good and fixes FAT #2 by making a copy of #1. This might be because FAT #1 is updated first and sometimes a computer crash occurs before FAT #2 is updated, not because Scandisk doesn't use FAT #2.

Is that so for the Win98SE version of Scandisk.exe (143.818 bytes) and the version of Scandisk.exe for WinME (245.324 bytes)?

Livingston & Straub claim on the same p.1091 that WinME Scandskw.exe (=Windows version) calls code located in Dskmaint.dll AND Shell.dll. Is this correct or incorrect also? If correct, should one use the WinME version of Shell.dll when using the WinME versions of Scandskw.exe+Dskmaint.dll under Win98?

[Marius '95]

Multibooter, on Jun 25 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

Marius'95, on Jun 25 2008, 06:36 AM, said:

No. DOS version.
It's true that most of the time, Scandisk decides that FAT #1 is good and fixes FAT #2 by making a copy of #1. This might be because FAT #1 is updated first and sometimes a computer crash occurs before FAT #2 is updated, not because Scandisk doesn't use FAT #2.

Is that so for the Win98SE version of Scandisk.exe (143.818 bytes) and the version of Scandisk.exe for WinME (245.324 bytes)?

I never used WinME Scandisk.

[dencorso]

Multibooter, on Jun 25 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

Livingston & Straub claim on the same p.1091 that WinME Scandskw.exe (=Windows version) calls code located in Dskmaint.dll AND Shell.dll. Is this correct or incorrect also? If correct, should one use the WinME version of Shell.dll when using the WinME versions of Scandskw.exe+Dskmaint.dll under Win98?

It can be demonstrated that Scandskw.exe depends on Dskmaint.dll, Shell.dll, KRNL386.EXE and USER.EXE, while
Dskmaint.dll itself depends on Shell.dll, KRNL386.EXE, KEYBOARD.DRV and USER.EXE. All these dependencies can be satisfied with Win 98, Win 98SE or Win ME files. Of them, the only ones that you need to have from Win ME are Scandskw.exe and Dskmaint.dll, which are much improved form the 98SE ones.

BTW, I've been discussing similar things also in this topic, which might be of interest to you all.

I've used the DOS version of NDD.EXE (2002) since 2002, and it never gave me grief. Before that I had the 2000 version. I cannot say anything about the 2001 version, because I've never had it. I'm also very paranoid about backups, so that when things get really bad (cross-linked files, for instance) I usually delete the files and get them from the most up-to-date existing backup. Things too new to be in a backup can be gotten again from the same source I got them the first time, or were mine own, which I can always recreate. If I have no choice but to try to recover some file I first create a forensically sound image of the disk where the damaged file is, and then can try the recovery in as many ways as I can think of, because I can always restore the image and start again. For simpler tasks both SCANDISK and NDD are adequate, and NDD is usually faster and smarter, although I do remember that Marius'95's 1 TiB RAID was too much for NDD.

[SlugFiller]

I used to use NDD because it was more verbose, and seemed more reliable (unlikely to crash itself, at least), but lesser performance and consistent issues with localized filenames prompted a return to good old scandisk.
Overall, NDD isn't so great. It has a plethora of issues, and doesn't apply fixes smoothly enough.

At any rate, with my current disk size, I prefer only to run a scan when there is valid suspicion of a file-system error, and do so manually. After all, it can easily take the better part of an hour with modern disk sizes.

[dencorso]

There's useful info findable by folowwing the links in this post. HTH