What is special about scandisk and the 10% mark in windows 9X?

[redbeard1]

What secret purpose is there for scandisk to sit forever at 10% on all windows 9X systems. Even on a system that has just had the OS installed, it sits forever at the magic 10% and then goes through the rest at a continuous rate. This is not a new revelation, it's just that I finally remembered to ask.

 

[redbeard1]

TTT

 

[NokiaDude]

It's a glitch in the old version of ScanDisk. In Windows XP, ScanDisk is awesome.

 

[Jeff7]

I gave up on the Windows scandisk for the Win9x series, and either use Norton Disk Doctor, or else just boot to DOS mode and run the commandline version of scandisk.

 

[redbeard1]

My assumption was that windows wanted certain system files within the 10% mark. I was hoping someone had heard of a reason in class or in MS training.

 

[scooter1]

Originally posted by: NokiaDude
It's a glitch in the old version of ScanDisk. In Windows XP, ScanDisk is awesome.

I occassionally use Windows ScanDisk wtih Windows XP but it doesn't report any information like if there were any errors found or how many clusters were scanned when it's done processing like it does with Windows 9x. It just says ScanDisk Complete or something. Is there a way to get it to display all of the processing information?

 

[redbeard1]

^

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: scooter1

Originally posted by: NokiaDude
It's a glitch in the old version of ScanDisk. In Windows XP, ScanDisk is awesome.

I occassionally use Windows ScanDisk wtih Windows XP but it doesn't report any information like if there were any errors found or how many clusters were scanned when it's done processing like it does with Windows 9x. It just says ScanDisk Complete or something. Is there a way to get it to display all of the processing information?

I'd like to know this as well.

 

[redbeard1]

Up from the depths

 

[redbeard1]

upsie

 

[warhorse]

I'm not very familiar with fat32 but I'm guessing that 10% is where it starts reading the metadata information. It probably has to read in all of the directory and file information, then after it gets past that it starts checking actual blocks and then the bar resumes as normal.

(This may be completely wrong; I'm basing this off of fsck for ext2 and if I were programming a progress bar for it with a bug in it, that's what I think I would see)