June 1, 200521 yr Tihiy has not said that this scandisk addresses any of the concerning issues and imo alot of people will not have problems with the 137 GB limit as their existing partitions will be smaller than this. i 've made my views on unnecessary hacked file inclusion in the SP pretty clear previously and for much the same reasons as Rhelic. it seems much better suited (what with the skinning and added icons) to Tihiy's own ongoing projects. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is not a hacked file... However, I will make optional these tools.We wrote that on various topics: 137 GB limit is a serious problem, it could not be fixed by smaller partitions.Please read Petr's 137 GB post for details.
June 1, 200521 yr It is not a hacked file... However, I will make optional these tools.We wrote that on various topics: 137 GB limit is a serious problem, it could not be fixed by smaller partitions.Please read Petr's 137 GB post for details.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>sorry, wasn't sure what it was,but didn't mean bring up "hacked" things again,i actually thought it was a 32bit rewrite of scandiskw (maybe should have gone with "3rd party" like Rhelic said)i will go read through all Petr's 137 GB post,i've not really encountered this problem myself,don't know why sometimes i think you dudes get to serious too quick when someones just mumbling y'know, chill dudes miko(Also willing to learn)
June 1, 200521 yr folks:A lesson learned I think. Tihiys 're-creation' of ScanDisk is nice looking (withe Lameskin) and adds some functionality. All using built in functions. What other system functions (hard to get at ones) can we write wrappers for. Tihiy suggested 'Network Properties' & 'Device Manager'. But what about extra Control Panel applets for things that don't have them (yet)? Adds functionality, puts things where folks expect it to be and, using 'system functions', there is little (ah... less) chance of introducing serious bugs. Can a 'wrapper' be a '.cpl' file, tihiy?nitebat
June 1, 200521 yr Author But what about extra Control Panel applets for things that don't have them (yet)? Adds functionality, puts things where folks expect it to be and, using 'system functions', there is little (ah... less) chance of introducing serious bugs. I can't see reason... Give me good example, please.
June 2, 200521 yr Tihiy,Could you add an alert into this Scandisk utility for 137 GB problem ? If anyone tries to scan a 137+ GB disk, this tool should warn the user like that "the drive may be corrupt".
June 2, 200521 yr Author Could you add an alert into this Scandisk utility for 137 GB problem ? If anyone tries to scan a 137+ GB disk, this tool should warn the user like that "the drive may be corrupt".Without a problem!.. Anything more?
June 2, 200521 yr Author Here it is:Scandskw 32-bit replacement, v"1.1"- Do not allows to check >128GB disk if it is not filled by data more than 128GB.- Do not allows to check NTFS drives.Resources can be translated.Why i can't edit my post on 1st page?scandskw.zip
June 2, 200521 yr Here it is:Scandskw 32-bit replacement, v"1.1"- Do not allows to check >128GB disk if it is not filled by data more than 128GB.- Do not allows to check NTFS drives.Resources can be translated.Why i can't edit my post on 1st page?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>They changed it so you can't edit some posts after a certain amount of time. Check the Site/Issues forum, I believe.http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=47512
June 2, 200521 yr - Do not allows to check >128GB disk if it is not filled by data more than 128GB.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks! But I don't understand that. Can you explain?
June 2, 200521 yr Author Well, if specified drive have size >128GB, this message will be shown.If it does but it is filled to more than 128GB, this message won't be shown.I'm not sure if it is a right method but it is one of.
June 3, 200521 yr If it does but it is filled to more than 128GB, this message won't be shown.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm not sure about that.
June 3, 200521 yr I'm not sure about that.Well, maybe I should remove that check. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Petr, rloew, and others: Could you make a comment?
June 3, 200521 yr Author SCANDISK does not know or care about 48-Bit LBA. It's limitation appears to be an issue with memory allocation. It's limit is actually 500MB below the 137GB limit. Some people have reported limits as low as 64GB. Upgrading or replacing your ESDI_506.PDR will not help. Even using a PCI Card or an external USB drive will not help. The only good news is that the Windows version of SCANDISK will fail immediately without doing any damage. The same for DEFRAG.This might not be true for third party SCANDISK and DEFRAG programs. The Windows ME versions are not any better. If your hard disk controller driver supports 48-Bit LBA you can place a 136GB partition anywhere on the hard drive you want.^^ rloew recent post.So, this check should be removed... or not removed... it is useless anyway.
Create an account or sign in to comment