Defragmenter will not run

#1 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 03 October 2011 - 04:47 PM

I tried to defragment my computer's hard drive today and got the following message:

Windows cannot finish defragmenting this drive because it has encountered a problem. Click Help and carry out the instructions for running ScanDisk, and then try defragmenting again.
ID No: DEFRAG00205

When I click on Help, it tells me to run a thorough scan using ScanDisk. This scan shows no errors. The computer is running Windows 98SE.

This post has been edited by lti: 03 October 2011 - 04:48 PM

#2 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 03 October 2011 - 06:44 PM

The Windows ME defragmenter works, so the original defragmenter might be corrupt. I will try to replace the original file from the CD or my other computer running Windows 98. The ME defragmenter doesn't do a good job.

Edit: After the ME defragmenter ran, the original defragmenter started working. That is strange.

This post has been edited by lti: 03 October 2011 - 06:59 PM

#3 Keithuk

Distinguished Member

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 25-January 07
Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2011 - 06:51 PM

I've said the WinME defrag works faster than the Win98 defrag. If you have the Win98 CD you can extract defrag.exe from one of the cab files with WinZip if you really think its corrupt but I would stick with the WinME version if I were you?

Keith

Martin2k

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (laptop computer)

#4 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 04 October 2011 - 07:53 PM

The ME defragmenter doesn't work as well.

#5 Keithuk

Distinguished Member

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 25-January 07
Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2011 - 07:07 PM

lti, on 04 October 2011 - 07:53 PM, said:

The ME defragmenter doesn't work as well.

What do you mean it doesn't work at all or it doesn't work as well as Win98 defrag?

As you said in your other post.

lti, on 02 October 2011 - 11:24 PM, said:

Edit: It looks like the hard drive is failing. The SMART data shows 7 reallocated sectors and I can't defragment the drive.

It look like you need a new computer start saving?

Keith

Martin2k

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (laptop computer)

#6 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:09 PM

The ME defragmenter doesn't work as well as the 98 defragmenter.

The bad sectors have probably existed for a long time. I didn't see any signs that the drive had bad sectors until I ran HDAT2. ScanDisk never showed any errors. The hard drive has been getting slower since I was given this computer. It is now so slow that I can not record audio using Audacity, even though it worked fine before reinstalling Windows.

I do need a new computer. This is the best computer I have.

#7 Keithuk

Distinguished Member

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 25-January 07
Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2011 - 01:44 PM

Well you can do a full scandisk with Win98 and WinME in DOS but the WinME isn't as easy. Hold the Ctrl key as its booting up and select Command Prompt Only from the boot menu. At the C:\ prompt type scandisk. If you get a message bad command or filename type in cd c:\windows\command and return then type scandisk again and select yes to do a full scan at the last prompt. Now I like the DOS scandisk because you can see all sectors pictorially as it scans unlike Windows. You maybe prompted to fix error as it scan, fix them. You will also see any bad sectors marked if it scanned them before.

Keith

Martin2k

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (laptop computer)

#8 4dude

Senior Member

Group: Members
Posts: 368
Joined: 19-March 11
Gender:Male

Posted 09 October 2011 - 11:08 PM

lti said:

The ME defragmenter doesn't work as well.

I would tend to agree my friend!

I wonder if thats because IT GOES TOO FAST?? (When you defrag,YOU DONT WANT SPEED,YOU WANT A GOOD JOB DONE!!)

After i defrag with WinME defrag i notice some stuff IS STILL THERE!! (It hasnt been moved)

This very well may be the case!! (Stuff gets WORSE not better i have noticed)

EDIT:

After extracting my Win98se defrag program and running it,EVERYTHING WAS MOVED TO C:\<unknown> where it should be (AT THE END OF THE DRIVE)

There was 7000+ entries all together and everyone of them was moved to <UNKNOWN> (I have a deleted file program i can scan my disk for deleted files and restore them if i want to (OR CLEAR THE SPACE TOTALLY (Totally delete the files)))

Rest3123 if your interested: http://www3.telus.net/mikebike/RESTORATION.html (Restoration.zip)

This post has been edited by 4dude: 09 October 2011 - 11:58 PM

#9 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 10 October 2011 - 09:46 AM

I noticed that the ME defragmenter seems to ignore some file fragments. It is also very sensitive and will sometimes restart every ten minutes on a computer with a good hard drive. When it restarts that often, you can see that the file fragments are always in the same location.

I am running ScanDisk in DOS now.

#10 Keithuk

Distinguished Member

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 25-January 07
Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:42 AM

Well everytime I've defraged with WinME everything is shuffled up the drive with not one little white block left showing. While it defrags it put the files its moving temporarily at the bottom of the drive if you drag the scrollbar down to the bottom you will see then being stacked up.

4dude, on 09 October 2011 - 11:08 PM, said:

After extracting my Win98se defrag program and running it,EVERYTHING WAS MOVED TO C:\<unknown> where it should be (AT THE END OF THE DRIVE)

I'm not sure I know what you mean moved to C:\<unknown> ? While your defraging you can't see where the files are being moved to only pictorially.

Keith

Martin2k

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (laptop computer)

#11 Keithuk

Distinguished Member

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 25-January 07
Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:43 AM

lti, on 10 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

I am running ScanDisk in DOS now.

And as it shown any bad sectors?

Keith

Martin2k

Windows ME (spare computer)
Windows XP 2002 Professional SP3 (desktop computer)
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (laptop computer)

#12 lti

Forum Regular

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:24 PM

No errors were found.

#13 4dude

Senior Member

Group: Members
Posts: 368
Joined: 19-March 11
Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:28 PM

Keithuk said:

I'm not sure I know what you mean moved to C:\<unknown> ? While your defraging you can't see where the files are being moved to only pictorially.

If you run this program after a defrag you will see all files (OR YOU SHOULD) moved to C:\<Unknown>

http://www3.telus.net/mikebike/RESTORATION.html (You can also totally delete all DELETED FILES with this program)

I notice that the WinME defrag is compressed more than the 98se defrag.. WinME defrag is 208k while Win98 defrag is 248k..

After i ran a scan with WinME's defrag i noticed things sluggish due to it using MORE cpu power.... Now that i have my original file back,THINGS ARE NOT SLUGGISH AFTER A SCAN....

This post has been edited by 4dude: 10 October 2011 - 07:30 PM

#14 kbit

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 09-November 11
Gender:Male
Location:ontario canada

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:38 AM

From my experience defrag should be run at a minimum once a month {twice is better } in "win98 any flavour" and when you run defrag sometimes it is best { not every time } to run it 4 or 5 times in a row or until it takes less than 5 mins on 10gb hdd . My win98 machines always were quick and I often wondered why people had so many problems with slowdowns in their computers . And I like the defrag from win me , I always got same results no matter which defrag I used but ME defrag is quicker . Oh , I also run scandisk before every defrag {except the 4 or 5 in a row } because I found that defrag would not catch every error and sometimes made errors worse . That`s my two cents worth!

This post has been edited by kbit: 10 November 2011 - 03:48 AM