Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:19:53 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net To: Eli Zaretskii cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Borland 4.5 C/C++ compiler problem In-Reply-To: <1438-Mon14Aug2000093605+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Eli Zaretskii spoke the following immortal words, > > From: Damian Yerrick > > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 05:47:33 GMT > > > > >Too many unmovable clusters usually mean lost or cross-linked clusters > > >and other similar calamities. One should run CHKDSK or SCANDISK (or > > >similar tools) before running the defragger. > > > > According to the docs, the Windows 98 defragger checks the disk > > for errors before it begins to juggle clusters. Does this count? > > Assuming that the docs tells the truth, yes. FWIW, I always run scandisk first before running defrag, as I don't trust defrags error detection a lot. If there was a error and it did not detect it and went ahead with the defrag, you can imagine the disastrous consequences...:( BTW just show the difference, after 1 years of usage, my linux 3 MB Ext2 file system has a amazingly low 2.8% of fragmentation, where as the windoze disk has a amazingly (not any more I suppose , it's from M$ you know..) high 12.5% of fragmentation, and I don't use it that much either :( Time to defrag the windoze disk...bye! Best Wishes, Grendel _____________________________________________________________________ ProZilla, the new Download Accelerator for Linux (GPL), Download as fast as your bandwith suports. _____________________________________________________________________