| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 5685.1 | http://www.execsoft.com/ | SCASS1::GRESS | | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:48 | 4 |
| Check http://www.execsoft.com/
Regards,
Kevin
|
| 5685.2 | | TARKIN::LIN | Bill Lin | Wed Feb 12 1997 12:44 | 2 |
| Note that the NT 3.51 version modifies system files whereas the NT 4.0
version does not.
|
| 5685.3 | | LEMAN::FOUCHAULT | Vous ici ! Quelle bonne surprise... | Thu Feb 13 1997 00:30 | 3 |
| thank's all
remi
|
| 5685.4 | | LEMAN::FOUCHAULT | Vous ici ! Quelle bonne surprise... | Fri Feb 14 1997 02:02 | 3 |
| does some one have more input ????
remi
|
| 5685.5 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Fri Feb 14 1997 07:17 | 22 |
| The nearest equivalent to SCANDISK for NT that I'm aware of is the
built-in CHKDSK run from a command window.
There's also a beta of Norton Speed Disk for NT available at the
Symantec web site, but I wouldn't recommend it; I started getting a
flurry of (apparently unrelated) blue screens on my system (page
fault in nonpaged area) before I finally found that it had installed
a background service; after I disabled the service, the blue screens
went away.
The Executive Software Diskeeper Lite mentioned in .1 doesn't do
anything in the background (that's in the pay-for version); you have
to manually start up each defrag operation. It's worth noting that
there has been some discussion in the miscellaneous NT newsgroup
about whether defragging an NTFS volume is worthwhile (general
concensus is yes, though there are dissenters).
Also note that if your disk is FAT-formatted rather than NTFS, I've
had no problems rebooting into a Windows 95 root and using its
defrag program. You do NOT want to use an old-style Windows disk
management program, as it is very likely to corrupt things like long
file names.
|
| 5685.6 | ok | LEMAN::FOUCHAULT | Vous ici ! Quelle bonne surprise... | Mon Feb 17 1997 00:30 | 3 |
| Thank's fo this infor paul
rmei
|
| 5685.7 | | ROCK::STROPPARO | Peter A. Stropparo | Thu Feb 20 1997 10:40 | 5 |
|
If you are using Fat-16 why couldn't you just use the
scandisk and defrag from Win95 while running NT 4.0?
|
| 5685.8 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Fri Feb 21 1997 06:53 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 5685.7 by ROCK::STROPPARO "Peter A. Stropparo" >>>
>
>
> If you are using Fat-16 why couldn't you just use the
> scandisk and defrag from Win95 while running NT 4.0?
Because I don't believe they'd work -- they'd run afoul of NT protection.
(I don't think I've actually tried it, though.)
|
| 5685.9 | | BHAJEE::JAERVINEN | Ora, the Old Rural Amateur | Fri Feb 21 1997 07:39 | 7 |
| I think both need direct access to disk which won' work if you run them
in a DOS box under Windows NT.
I haven't tried it, but as stated earlier, you should be able to boot
into Win95 and use them from there (floppy boot should be enough)if
you're using FAT-16.
|
| 5685.10 | | CSEXP1::ANDREWS | I'm the NRA | Fri Feb 21 1997 08:38 | 4 |
| > Because I don't believe they'd work -- they'd run afoul of NT protection.
NT File protection doesn't work under FAT, only NTFS.
|
| 5685.11 | | DECWET::SCHREIBER | DECeNT | Fri Feb 21 1997 09:58 | 3 |
| hmm... I use Win95 defrag on my laptop regularly, but do all my work on
the laptop with NT. So far, no negative side effects. Your results,
of course, may vary.
|
| 5685.12 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:51 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 5685.10 by CSEXP1::ANDREWS "I'm the NRA" >>>
>
> > Because I don't believe they'd work -- they'd run afoul of NT protection.
>
>
> NT File protection doesn't work under FAT, only NTFS.
Not the protection I was talking about. NT doesn't let J-Random
programs access the hardware at a low level, which is what I was
referring to.
|
| 5685.13 | | DECWET::SCHREIBER | DECeNT | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:46 | 2 |
| re .12: Right...you have to do the defrag under Win95. Actually, I've
never tried it under NT, just figured that it wouldn't work.
|
| 5685.14 | | BHAJEE::JAERVINEN | Ora, the Old Rural Amateur | Sat Feb 22 1997 02:28 | 1 |
| re .13: I have, and it doesn't.
|