h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Anyone who's worked with Windows 98 knows how annoying it is to have to wait for Scandisk to snooze its way through the disk any time the system crashes and needs to be power-cycled or hard-reset. While I fully understand the need to check for FAT validity (since even minor problems can grow into major
ones if left unchecked), ScanDIsk also has to check the file system to ensure that no file "starts" in the middle of a chain of clusters on disk (cross-linked file: very bad!)
If each cluster had a bit which indicated whether it was the first cluster in a file, then whether or not a "quick scandisk" would notice a cross-linked file, the system would notice the first time it went to access the file that its FAT block wasn't marked as being the first byte of a file.
Of course, trying to fix the FAT system in this way is a rather crude band-aid on a system which is horribly unsuitable for multi-gig drives, but it'd be better than what Microsoft does now.
[link]
|
| |
Hmmm. Doesn't quite work that way [supercat]. The entries in the FAT point to the cluster where the file starts. At the end of said cluster is another pointer to where the next section of the file is located. Etc. Etc. |
|
| |
No matter how you look at it, Scandisk has to scan every file on your hard drive to make sure every pointer correlates to a piece of that file. |
|
| |
You could retrograde to Win95 which doesn't force that "We know better than you" crap on you. Or you could make a point of always running shutdown prior to turning off the power. A final alternative is to run Chkdsk (check disk) prior to booting Win98: it gives you the option of turning those annoying file fragments into .chk files. Of course, you lose your data in the process... |
|
| |
do it in FAT: nonstandard (not FAT anymore) Do it non-FAT: why? |
|
| |