Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186406 > unrolled thread

chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> - 2025-07-31 13:04 -0400
    Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-31 10:42 -0700
      Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them jason_warren <jason_warren@ieee.org> - 2025-07-31 13:44 -0400
        Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-31 11:32 -0700
          Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-01 10:39 +0100
            Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 04:27 -0700
            Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-01 08:03 -0400
          Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Jason <jason_warren@INVALID.ieee.org> - 2025-08-01 18:16 -0400
      Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-01 18:25 +0100
    Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-31 17:09 -0400
      Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-01 02:41 +0200
        Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-31 23:22 -0400
          Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-01 14:18 +0200
            Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 17:30 -0700
              Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-02 14:20 +0200
                Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 23:15 -0700
                  Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them Hank Rogers <invalid@nospam.com> - 2025-08-04 07:53 +0000
                    Re: chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 01:21 -0700

#186406 — chkdsk finds errors, fails to correct them

Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for  
trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and 
asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that 
but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This 
happened three times in a row. What's up and should I 
worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any 
difference.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#186407

On 7/31/25 10:04 AM, Jason wrote:
> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
> difference.
> 


What does Crystal Disk Info say about your SSD drive?

https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/files/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186408

In article <106g9ub$3tvqc$1@dont-email.me>, 
T@invalid.invalid says...
> 
> On 7/31/25 10:04 AM, Jason wrote:
> > Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
> > trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
> > asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
> > but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
> > happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
> > worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
> > difference.
> > 
> 
> 
> What does Crystal Disk Info say about your SSD drive?
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/files/

I didn't mention it, but I did run Crystal Disk too. It 
says all is well...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186409

On 7/31/25 10:44 AM, jason_warren wrote:
> In article <106g9ub$3tvqc$1@dont-email.me>,
> T@invalid.invalid says...
>>
>> On 7/31/25 10:04 AM, Jason wrote:
>>> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
>>> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
>>> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
>>> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
>>> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
>>> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What does Crystal Disk Info say about your SSD drive?
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/files/
> 
> I didn't mention it, but I did run Crystal Disk too. It
> says all is well...

Probably (note the weasel word) nothing wrong then.

What chkdsk command did you run?  "chkdsk /f"?
The error you are getting may also be bogus.

As administrator, try running system file check:
     sfc /scannow

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186422

In article <106gcs2$3tvqc$2@dont-email.me>, T@invalid.invalid says...


>As administrator, try running system file check:
>     sfc /scannow
>

I rarely got SFC to work, until I learned that it's often necessary to 
run DISM first.

Essentially, SFC compares files in the running system with those salted 
away in the Component Store, and replaces any which are found corrupt.  
But the Component Store itself can become corrupt, and DISM fixes that.

I run DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth 
If this "verificaton" produces no errors, then I run SFC /Scannow

If DISM ... /ScanHealth does come back with errors, then I run:
DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
... which copies down fresh versions of Component Store items from the 
web.

If that doesn't work (happened once to me) then there's a process for 
rebuilding the Component Store from a downloaded image.

Since I found out about DISM (which also does heaps of things I don't 
really understand!) SFC has suprisingly often reported that it has 
repaired corrupted files, and glitches have been seen to go.


--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186424

On 8/1/25 2:39 AM, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <106gcs2$3tvqc$2@dont-email.me>, T@invalid.invalid says...
> 
> 
>> As administrator, try running system file check:
>>      sfc /scannow
>>
> 
> I rarely got SFC to work, until I learned that it's often necessary to
> run DISM first.
> 
> Essentially, SFC compares files in the running system with those salted
> away in the Component Store, and replaces any which are found corrupt.
> But the Component Store itself can become corrupt, and DISM fixes that.
> 
> I run DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth
> If this "verificaton" produces no errors, then I run SFC /Scannow
> 
> If DISM ... /ScanHealth does come back with errors, then I run:
> DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> ... which copies down fresh versions of Component Store items from the
> web.
> 
> If that doesn't work (happened once to me) then there's a process for
> rebuilding the Component Store from a downloaded image.
> 
> Since I found out about DISM (which also does heaps of things I don't
> really understand!) SFC has suprisingly often reported that it has
> repaired corrupted files, and glitches have been seen to go.
> 
> 
> --
> Phil, London


Hi Phil,

   I wrote it down in my keeper file.  Thank you!

-T

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186425

On Fri, 8/1/2025 5:39 AM, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <106gcs2$3tvqc$2@dont-email.me>, T@invalid.invalid says...
> 
> 
>> As administrator, try running system file check:
>>     sfc /scannow
>>
> 
> I rarely got SFC to work, until I learned that it's often necessary to 
> run DISM first.
> 
> Essentially, SFC compares files in the running system with those salted 
> away in the Component Store, and replaces any which are found corrupt.  
> But the Component Store itself can become corrupt, and DISM fixes that.
> 
> I run DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth 
> If this "verificaton" produces no errors, then I run SFC /Scannow
> 
> If DISM ... /ScanHealth does come back with errors, then I run:
> DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth
> ... which copies down fresh versions of Component Store items from the 
> web.
> 
> If that doesn't work (happened once to me) then there's a process for 
> rebuilding the Component Store from a downloaded image.
> 
> Since I found out about DISM (which also does heaps of things I don't 
> really understand!) SFC has suprisingly often reported that it has 
> repaired corrupted files, and glitches have been seen to go.
> 
> 
> --
> Phil, London
> 

Like building a house, the two tools are in their own "layers".

DISM is the foundation of the house. If you're building a house,
you do your DISM first.

SFC is the room above that (keeps the system files and the
windows file protection cache aligned). The files that the
system uses, are linked to the WinSXS thing which is maintained
by DISM.

When you install the OS, you don't install the OS, you
"install a thousand packages". And together, once linked
to various places, that functions as an OS. The purpose
of describing it that way, is to point out it is "modular"
and by changing the package set or changing or removing
some linkages, a more streamlined OS could result.

When you get a Patch Tuesday file, those are Jumbo installers
with multiple package changes inside. And doing it that way,
apparently helps hide the broken nature of Windows Update
and its implementation. The smaller "security packages" in
the past, seemed to make Windows Update slower to calculate
what was needed in the way of patches. The Jumbo installers
are still requiring a lot of "computation", but at least it
is now pretty obvious how many packages should come in on
Patch Tuesday (anywhere from zero to three, one or two being
more common). The two package case, is a dotNET update and
a security package (the security package consisting of two
parts, and the second part is a Servicing Stack Update that
comes in each month now).

You would be surprised sometimes, at HOW the work is being
done. I assumed SFC disk activity, that was "reads" and it
was analyzing the stuff. Instead, if you check, you might
find it is doing "unconditional writes" and it doesn't
really "check" anything, it "paves instead". Check with ProcMon
and see what it is doing.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186458

In article <106gcs2$3tvqc$2@dont-email.me>, 
T@invalid.invalid says...
> 
> On 7/31/25 10:44 AM, jason_warren wrote:
> > In article <106g9ub$3tvqc$1@dont-email.me>,
> > T@invalid.invalid says...
> >>
> >> On 7/31/25 10:04 AM, Jason wrote:
> >>> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
> >>> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
> >>> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
> >>> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
> >>> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
> >>> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
> >>> difference.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> What does Crystal Disk Info say about your SSD drive?
> >>
> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/
> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/crystaldiskinfo/files/
> > 
> > I didn't mention it, but I did run Crystal Disk too. It
> > says all is well...
> 
> Probably (note the weasel word) nothing wrong then.
> 
> What chkdsk command did you run?  "chkdsk /f"?
> The error you are getting may also be bogus.
> 
> As administrator, try running system file check:
>      sfc /scannow

sfc -did- find some problems and fixed them but not until
I ran it a second time. Now the CBS log is clean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186440

On 2025/7/31 18:42:35, T wrote:

[]

> What does Crystal Disk Info say about your SSD drive?

[]

"SSD drive"? (-:--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186413

On Thu, 7/31/2025 1:04 PM, Jason wrote:
> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for  
> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and 
> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that 
> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This 
> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I 
> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any 
> difference.
> 

As you know, Microsoft on the one hand, claims the NTFS API
has not changed in years, thus "everything is compatible"
as they spin their new OSes. They refuse to change the NTFS
release number.

But, changes have been made, and they "aren't exactly compatible".
A glaring example, is the ability to make 2MB clusters in W10/W11,
which Windows 7 cannot read.

Some of the changes are "wear optimization" for SSDs. That means
fewer nuisance writes done by the OS. For example, the "Accessed"
time stamp would be modified on a HDD drive, on some file or other,
almost constantly. And that's because, in the HDD era, we didn't worry
about writes. The HDD has a TBW rating, which does imply a workload
sensitivity versus SKU, but that did not bother anyone at the time.

One of the optimizations was to stop maintaining $BITMAP on the SSD,
while the OS was running. A copy was stored in memory. This upset
Macrium at the time, which does disk verification by examining
structures on disk, before a backup is done. If Macrium had used
the memory copy of $BITMAP, that would not have happened and
"Macrium would not have noticed". But for Microsoft, this is why
you cannot go around arbitrarily changing things, because it
causes your "partners" to have to issue "emergency patches"
(6.3.1865 era) after you fiddle something on a Patch Tuesday.
The VirtualBox guys had to scramble at one point and release
two emergency patches, after Microsoft broke their stuff
(apparently without warning by the looks of it).

The visual symptoms of this, the "blowback" as it were, generally
only showed in the W10 release where it first showed up. Sufficient
bandaids were applied, that people stopped seeing sizing errors
caused by the handling of $BITMAP. For a short period of time,
you could not even trust the pie chart capacity in the partition
Properties dialog, because of this stuff.

*******

So now let us consider our maintenance possibilities. We know that,
quite frequently, the $BITMAP on the disk at rest is wrong. In other
environments, storage drivers must have been modified, to do a $BITMAP
calc while the file system was being mounted.

OK, so the CHKDSK on W10 likely does not care to fix this. Because
that version of CHKDSK knows about the "lazy evaluation" of $BITMAP.
There is no reason to fix it... because it will break again, surely ?

But Win7 still cares about the $BITMAP, and the help for the Win7 CHKDSK
is not going to offer any comments about the poor design choices in
Windows 10/11. Windows 7 didn't get the memo.

If you have a Win7 installer DVD (I bought one of those hologram DVDs
long ago), you can boot one of those, instead of installing, select
"Troubleshooting", and there should be a Command Prompt option in there.

   chkdsk /?

Look at the options carefully, as each generation of CHKDSK, not only
does it do the normal things, but occasionally there are a couple
"weird" options listed. Just the "regular" options will likely fix
this situation. But on maybe one occasion, I had to use one
of those "weird" options to fix an NTFS (errors would not go away
otherwise).

Now the downside of using Windows 7. Windows 7 sees the Extended Attributes
that W10/W11 (reparse points) have applied to the file system. Every time
Windows 7 CHKDSK sees one of those, it takes about a second to process
it and "mess with it". Obviously (up to a point), running an older
OS is not supposed to cause any long term issues for NTFS. The exception
to this, might be booting and sharing an NTFS partition between
WinXP and W10/W11. That might cause a more important issue, depending
on your W10/W11 setup.

But the Windows 7 CHKDSK will run, and as near as I can determine from
my limited usage of it, it's the software item for the job in this
case, even if it does not understand reparse points perfectly. It might
be a bit slow, because of the number of Extended Attributes. If this
happens, go make yourself a three course meal and "chill" :-) This is
how I got this fat, by "waiting for computers" :-)

Summary: I don't know if this is guaranteed to fix it, but the
         Windows 7 CHKDSK is the tool of last resort to try to get
         errors to go away. You can run the CHKDSK in Troubleshooting mode,
         from a Windows 7 Installer DVD. It is not necessary to have a
         hard drive with Windows 7 on it, to gain access to a Windows 7 CHKDSK.
         There is a potential limit, to how modern the hardware can be,
         and the Windows 7 DVD booting (I have not encountered a problem
         but my stuff is aging and my Zen3 isn't the latest any more).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186416

On 2025-07-31 23:09, Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 7/31/2025 1:04 PM, Jason wrote:
>> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
>> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
>> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
>> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
>> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
>> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
>> difference.
>>
> 
> As you know, Microsoft on the one hand, claims the NTFS API
> has not changed in years, thus "everything is compatible"
> as they spin their new OSes. They refuse to change the NTFS
> release number.
> 
> But, changes have been made, and they "aren't exactly compatible".
> A glaring example, is the ability to make 2MB clusters in W10/W11,
> which Windows 7 cannot read.

There is another I can't remember... ah, "reparse points", you mentioned 
it later. Affects compressed directories, I think. Linux has problems 
with them.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186418

On Thu, 7/31/2025 8:41 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-07-31 23:09, Paul wrote:
>> On Thu, 7/31/2025 1:04 PM, Jason wrote:
>>> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
>>> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
>>> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
>>> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
>>> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
>>> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>> As you know, Microsoft on the one hand, claims the NTFS API
>> has not changed in years, thus "everything is compatible"
>> as they spin their new OSes. They refuse to change the NTFS
>> release number.
>>
>> But, changes have been made, and they "aren't exactly compatible".
>> A glaring example, is the ability to make 2MB clusters in W10/W11,
>> which Windows 7 cannot read.
> 
> There is another I can't remember... ah, "reparse points", you mentioned it later. Affects compressed directories, I think. Linux has problems with them.
> 

That's how Microsoft ensures that Linux never catches up :-)

I'm sure they don't do this on purpose. It's just an accident or something.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186426

On 2025-08-01 05:22, Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 7/31/2025 8:41 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-07-31 23:09, Paul wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7/31/2025 1:04 PM, Jason wrote:
>>>> Now and again, I run chkdsk on partitions to look for
>>>> trouble. Lately, on C:, chkdsk reports bitmap errors and
>>>> asks if I want to restart to fix them offline. I do that
>>>> but chkdsk again reports errors upon restarting. This
>>>> happened three times in a row. What's up and should I
>>>> worry? BTW, C: is a 1G SSD should that make any
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you know, Microsoft on the one hand, claims the NTFS API
>>> has not changed in years, thus "everything is compatible"
>>> as they spin their new OSes. They refuse to change the NTFS
>>> release number.
>>>
>>> But, changes have been made, and they "aren't exactly compatible".
>>> A glaring example, is the ability to make 2MB clusters in W10/W11,
>>> which Windows 7 cannot read.
>>
>> There is another I can't remember... ah, "reparse points", you mentioned it later. Affects compressed directories, I think. Linux has problems with them.
>>
> 
> That's how Microsoft ensures that Linux never catches up :-)
> 
> I'm sure they don't do this on purpose. It's just an accident or something.

<https://www.genbeta.com/actualidad/microsoft-bloqueo-correo-desarrollador-libreoffice-al-intentar-buscar-solucion-se-encontro-sistema-desfasado>


Microsoft blocked the email account of a LibreOffice developer. When 
trying to find a solution, he encountered an outdated system.
Microsoft's support system was unable to provide an effective solution.

The already tense relationship between Microsoft and the LibreOffice 
community, the main open-source alternative to Office, may have added a 
new and frustrating chapter. Mike Kaganski, a developer of the free 
office suite, discovered this week that his Microsoft account had been 
suddenly blocked without a clear explanation. Worst of all, he only 
noticed the block when he was about to send an email to the project's 
developer list.

Microsoft's warning message was as brief as it was alarming: his account 
had been blocked for violating the terms of service. Kaganski, truly 
surprised, went so far as to publicly invite anyone to look at his email 
and try to detect any messages that were out of the ordinary, as most of 
them were technical messages about the development of LibreOffice.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)


I understand this chap is a Libre Office contributor, in Windows.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186459

On 8/1/25 5:18 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Microsoft blocked the email account of a LibreOffice developer. When 
> trying to find a solution, he encountered an outdated system.
> Microsoft's support system was unable to provide an effective solution.
> 
> The already tense relationship between Microsoft and the LibreOffice 
> community, the main open-source alternative to Office, may have added a 
> new and frustrating chapter. Mike Kaganski, a developer of the free 
> office suite, discovered this week that his Microsoft account had been 
> suddenly blocked without a clear explanation. Worst of all, he only 
> noticed the block when he was about to send an email to the project's 
> developer list.
> 
> Microsoft's warning message was as brief as it was alarming: his account 
> had been blocked for violating the terms of service. Kaganski, truly 
> surprised, went so far as to publicly invite anyone to look at his email 
> and try to detect any messages that were out of the ordinary, as most of 
> them were technical messages about the development of LibreOffice.
> 
> Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
> 
> 
> I understand this chap is a Libre Office contributor, in Windows.


Not to ask too stupid a question, but did he change his
eMail carrier after that?

I wonder why he was using a M$ spyware account to
start with?   I set up all my Windows users with
off line accounts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186469

On 2025-08-02 02:30, T wrote:
> On 8/1/25 5:18 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Microsoft blocked the email account of a LibreOffice developer. When 
>> trying to find a solution, he encountered an outdated system.
>> Microsoft's support system was unable to provide an effective solution.
>>
>> The already tense relationship between Microsoft and the LibreOffice 
>> community, the main open-source alternative to Office, may have added 
>> a new and frustrating chapter. Mike Kaganski, a developer of the free 
>> office suite, discovered this week that his Microsoft account had been 
>> suddenly blocked without a clear explanation. Worst of all, he only 
>> noticed the block when he was about to send an email to the project's 
>> developer list.
>>
>> Microsoft's warning message was as brief as it was alarming: his 
>> account had been blocked for violating the terms of service. Kaganski, 
>> truly surprised, went so far as to publicly invite anyone to look at 
>> his email and try to detect any messages that were out of the 
>> ordinary, as most of them were technical messages about the 
>> development of LibreOffice.
>>
>> Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
>>
>>
>> I understand this chap is a Libre Office contributor, in Windows.
> 
> 
> Not to ask too stupid a question, but did he change his
> eMail carrier after that?
> 
> I wonder why he was using a M$ spyware account to
> start with?   I set up all my Windows users with
> off line accounts.

No idea. Maybe because he has to ask support questions in order to do 
his job on LO.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186520

On 8/2/25 5:20 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Not to ask too stupid a question, but did he change his
>> eMail carrier after that?
>>
>> I wonder why he was using a M$ spyware account to
>> start with?   I set up all my Windows users with
>> off line accounts.
> 
> No idea. Maybe because he has to ask support questions in order to do 
> his job on LO.


In all my years, I will only post on M$ support forums
when I am desperate.  I have yet to have them actually
answer one of my questions.  They cut and paste some
marketing approved drivel then have the guts to sent
me a request asking for complements over their service.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186521

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/2/25 5:20 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Not to ask too stupid a question, but did he change his
>>> eMail carrier after that?
>>> 
>>> I wonder why he was using a M$ spyware account to
>>> start with?   I set up all my Windows users with
>>> off line accounts.
>> 
>> No idea. Maybe because he has to ask support questions in order to do 
>> his job on LO.
> 
> 
> In all my years, I will only post on M$ support forums
> when I am desperate.  I have yet to have them actually
> answer one of my questions.  They cut and paste some
> marketing approved drivel then have the guts to sent
> me a request asking for complements over their service.
> 

That’s about the same as my experience.  Rarely do I see a response that
answers people’s questions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186522

On 8/4/25 12:53 AM, Hank Rogers wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8/2/25 5:20 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Not to ask too stupid a question, but did he change his
>>>> eMail carrier after that?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why he was using a M$ spyware account to
>>>> start with?   I set up all my Windows users with
>>>> off line accounts.
>>>
>>> No idea. Maybe because he has to ask support questions in order to do
>>> his job on LO.
>>
>>
>> In all my years, I will only post on M$ support forums
>> when I am desperate.  I have yet to have them actually
>> answer one of my questions.  They cut and paste some
>> marketing approved drivel then have the guts to sent
>> me a request asking for complements over their service.
>>
> 
> That’s about the same as my experience.  Rarely do I see a response that
> answers people’s questions.

And they censor anything the don't like!  Criticism of their
products is not tolerated, making it a pain to describe a
problem

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web