🚀 go-pugleaf

Recently I have been posting too many things about CHKDSK.EXE and wish
to apologise to the readers. It does point out a desperate need
though.  (Yes, Virginia, we are back to a National Laboratory).

Consider all of the bandwidth that has been used to say three things:
1) What the risk was.
2) How do you tell if you are at risk.
3) What do you do about it.

And really this should have occurred sometime before 11-11-91 since it
was known then. For me, it was just chance that the disk purchased
just over a month ago did mot suffer the same fate (one partition is
within 100 "allocation units" of the danger mark). True, it has been
just in the last year that big disks became common and since most disk
compression routines use 8,192 byte clusters, they were not at risk
(though the day before yesterday I saw a system with a 600Mb STACKed
disk - guess what the number of clusters was ?)

But, if we had at any time a responsible posting giving the three
elements above as an "advisory", note would have been taken,
corrections made, and we would have gone on. It wasn't and disks had
to become corrupted before public notice was made and then knee-jerk
reactions were made (does this sound like Michelangelo).

NIST has apparently abandoned the PC. Magazines try but they are not
necessarily looking at the right things or looking the right way. So
it is relegated to us amateurs & like most things "you get what you
pay for".

				And a Merry Christmas to all,

							Padgett
             *
             |
            abc
           defgh
          ijklmno
         pqrstuvwx
        yzabcdefghi
       jklmnopqrstuv
           wxyz
            |
           ---