[Update: Bug existed in Insider Builds since August] Chkdsk is supposedly corrupting SSDs on Windows 10

[StDragon]

This is anecdotal evidence at best. I suspect that not many people run chkdsk /f often and already had corruption within the NTFS structure. So now because of this news, people will finally run the command and if any errors are found, will find them. For some, it will hose their system if the damage is bad enough. But I doubt that as the partition information is held in two places on the drive.

 

And BTW, it's always a good idea to run chkdsk /f just as a precautionary measure; specifically after an unexpected shutdown or reboot caused by a power outage or BSOD. If you're feeling really paranoid, you can run the chkdsk /r which goes a step further.

 

And as always, back up your PC. I recommend Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows FREE

 

[DrMacintosh]

Windows is definitely not an operating system that I trust my data with. I have heard that Microsoft is attempting to fix not being able to just repair the OS, but right now Windows 10 is nowhere near the level of data integrity that can be had from macOS. 

 

Backing up your data is imperative. I prefer cloud services like iCloud Drive to store documents that I don't want to lose. 

[StDragon]

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Windows is definitely not an operating system that I trust my data with. I have heard that Microsoft is attempting to fix not being able to just repair the OS, but right now Windows 10 is nowhere near the level of data integrity that can be had from macOS. 

If you suspect corruption with the Windows OS, you can run the DISM command to validate health and make repairs. But keep in mind such corruption is not caused by software, but by an underlaying issue with the HW..

 

Also, I've personally experienced data corruption with HFS+. It's not any better or worse than NTFS.

 

Supposedly ReFS is robust, but I'm not willing to put my eggs in that basket. But if you want the most robust FS out there, you go with ZFS.

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, StDragon said:

If you suspect corruption with the Windows OS, you can run the DISM command to validate health and make repairs. But keep in mind such corruption is not caused by software, but by an underlaying issue with the HW..

Theoretically, but that requires that the OS be bootable and in a repairable state. DISM and SFC /SCANNNOW are dubious commands that often don't work. If Windows is not fixable, and needs to be reinstalled completely, you're screwed. You might be able to save some personal files, but programs/applications are going to be deleted. 

 

4 minutes ago, StDragon said:

Also, I've personally experienced data corruption with HFS+. It's not any better or worse than NTFS.

HFS+ is not used anymore. But yes, HFS+ is much better than NTFS. NTFS is ancient. APFS is more robust than HFS+. But it's not really about the file system as much as it is how the OS is designed.

 

With Windows, the line between the OS and your data is basically not existent. With macOS the operating system and your data are very distinct things. You can reinstall macOS and 100% of everything about your data will be in the same place as it was before. Not so with Windows. 

[strajk-]

I've been Rocking the same Windows Install since 2007, was an XP, updated every time without formatting, migrated to new hardware whenever I made a new build, never had an issue and I hope it stays that way. 

[jagdtigger]

10 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

With macOS the operating system and your data are very distinct things

Im just guessing but its not that those are different things, just reside on different partitions......

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Im just guessing but its not that those are different things, just reside on different partitions......

They didn't use to be that way. Prior to Big Sur and Catalina the OS and your data was not separated on partitions. That decision was made for security of the OS more than for data integrity. 

[jagdtigger]

Just because they put the os on a different partition i dont think it would do anything for security...

[StDragon]

30 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Theoretically, but that requires that the OS be bootable and in a repairable state. DISM and SFC /SCANNNOW are dubious commands that often don't work.

They are not dubious commands. They do work to an extent. If you have a hosed file system, there's not much you can do. The FS is the foundation to build upon. Bust that, and and everything else on top of it is suspect. But the commands aren't dubious. They work when used accordingly to resolve an applicable issue. What's "dubious" is people's advice in treating these commands as a cure-all.

 

30 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

HFS+ is not used anymore. But yes, HFS+ is much better than NTFS. NTFS is ancient. APFS is more robust than HFS+. 

NTFS is reliable. It's also gone through multiple revisions. So it's not ancient in terms of being static since the days of NT 3.5.

 

Also, HFS+ isn't much better then NTFS. Saying it's "much better" is frankly hyperbole.

 

 

Quote

But it's not really about the file system as much as it is how the OS is designed.

OSX is garbage. Each version is more buggy than the last. They can't even get SMB access right.

 

Quote

You might be able to save some personal files, but programs/applications are going to be deleted. 

By design. When you install an application, it's bound to the registry hive. It's all about preventing piracy. Gone are the days of DOS where you can just transplant an installed application via directory copy from one HDD to another. Criticize that all you want, but that's not a bug.

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, StDragon said:

It's all about preventing piracy.

  It sounds more like a reason a lazy programmer would use just so he/she doesnt have to program the proper way and avoud the registra like the plague......

(Honestly its nothing but trouble.)

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, StDragon said:

 

By design. When you install an application, it's bound to the registry hive. It's all about preventing piracy. Gone are the days of DOS where you can just transplant an installed application via directory copy from one HDD to another. Criticize that all you want, but that's not a bug.

I agree with everything you said before the above. This is incorrect. Most applications can be transported with ease. Their "setup" is nothing more than zip (or whatever algo) decompression program in disguise with the ability to create a shortcut or non essential registry entry (such as file association (which typically the program itself can do via their options) if any that needs to be setup, and startup and things like that (oh and register its uninstaller)). It may include additional libs that needed to be installed at a system wide level, which the devs choose not to embeded in the application itself.. but that is about it.

 

Yes, some really big applications, like Office might seem to be tied to the registry hive, however, it is really that, it needs to do a lot of steps that the setup does for you, such as registration of lib files to the system (required due to the way the program works), and register and start services that it needs.

 

Some application, may also require a driver level DRM to be installed for the application to work. Same for games that require an anti-cheat system as well.

 

That is for non-Store apps under Windows. For Store apps, I don't know enough to comment. 

 

[StDragon]

9 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

  It sounds more like a reason a lazy programmer would use just so he/she doesnt have to program the proper way and avoud the registra like the plague......

(Honestly its nothing but trouble.)

Apple at least has this right; you can just restore an application to another Mac. But in Windows, it will fail to execute even if you restore the application to another PC.

 

Back in the days of DOS, your configuration was saved in INI files. Microsoft's answer to centralized this in one database was the Registry. It still keeps track of old programs long after you uninstall them. Meaning, once a trial version expires, you can't just uninstall and reinstall them. The history is buried in the registry some place.

[GoodBytes]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

  It sounds more like a reason a lazy programmer would use just so he/she doesnt have to program the proper way and avoud the registra like the plague......

(Honestly its nothing but trouble.)

Actually, the official way is to use the registry. Microsoft recommends it for everything including  program settings. Why? The registry is a database at the end of the day. It is the best way to store and access data, and supports multiple simultaneous users. It doesn't slow down performance as file gets larger, if there is a corruption, it doesn't corrupts the rest of the file, and you have all the added benefit of a database model.

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, StDragon said:

But in Windows, it will fail to execute even if you restore the application to another PC.

 

Mostly yes but there are exceptions, like ff or thunderbird for example, maybe even chrome.....

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

The registry is a database at the end of the day.

And thus an immovable monolithic mess. Besides i dont think the registry is any faster than a file. Especially on SSD......

[StDragon]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Mostly yes but there are exceptions, like ff or thunderbird for example, maybe even chrome.....

Correct. But that depends on the software developer.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

And thus an immovable monolithic mess. Besides i dont think the registry is any faster than a file. Especially on SSD......

Nope. There is a reason why YouTube, Google, this forum, and just about thing that stores data uses a database instead of a text file.

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Just because they put the os on a different partition i dont think it would do anything for security...

It does a lot actually. If you prevent the data part of the computer (your applications and files) from being able to write to the OS part, then malware can’t edit and infect the operating system. 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

It does a lot actually. If you prevent the data part of the computer (your applications and files) from being able to write to the OS part, then malware can’t edit and infect the operating system. 

The only way that could happen is if the OS's permission structure is horribly broken. Or someone was dumb and ran a program with root privileges but that human idiocy and separate partition wont prevent that.

 

32 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Nope. There is a reason why YouTube, Google, this forum, and just about thing that stores data uses a database instead of a text file.

Just because it works on astronomical scale's it doesnt mean its better on a small scale affair like an os. Not like there is any credible info about your theory on the net so i have to assume the difference is so negligible that no-one bothered to do any testing.

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The only way that could happen is if the OS's permission structure is horribly broken. Or someone was dumb and ran a program with root privileges but that human idiocy and separate partition wont prevent that.

That’s just a whole lot of assumptions. 
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/10/24/macos-catalina-hidden-volume/

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That’s just a whole lot of assumptions. 
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/10/24/macos-catalina-hidden-volume/

Its the same with every OS regardless if it has separate partition for the OS. The regular user has only write permission to his/her home folder, the rest of the system partition is read only(or in some cases off limits). Oh and just as an extra bit just because the sys partition is RO by default it does not mean that a root level command cant remount it as RW...

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Oh and just as an extra bit just because the sys partition is RO by default it does not mean that a root level command cant remount it as RW...

Except on macOS it auto locks to RO after you’re done doing whatever you messed with while installing a program. You have to grant permission for write access for every app that requires access. That’s a good thing. 

It locks to RO after a restart and RO after you grant write access to a specific application. The OS can’t stay unlocked and vulnerable to attack. The only way your OS can be compromised is if you allowed it to be. That’s not so for Windows 10. 

 

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its the same with every OS regardless if it has separate partition for the OS.

I don’t see this behavior in Windows? How have other operating systems implemented this? 

[StDragon]

39 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Except on macOS it auto locks to RO after you’re done doing whatever you messed with while installing a program. You have to grant permission for write access for every app that requires access. That’s a good thing. 

It locks to RO after a restart and RO after you grant write access to a specific application. The OS can’t stay unlocked and vulnerable to attack. The only way your OS can be compromised is if you allowed it to be. That’s not so for Windows 10. 

 

Since the days of Vista (yes, that edition was awful), MS implemented UAC (User Access Control) which was was their equivalent of sudo in Linux. It works reasonably well, but not if the user elevates the permission when prompted by malware. It all comes down to PEBCAK. Often I see malware in Excel files with directions informing the user to enable. Explicit instructions for running ransomware without the user being aware it's ransomware.

 

With the right social engineering and presented instructions, you can get user with Admin level access to have their computer 0wned; limitations be damned! In the end, you either have access to admin level privileges, or you don't.

 

I do give Apple credit in regards to having the default of only allowing signed applications. But recently, Apple made it difficult to run un-signed code. For the vast majority of users, this won't be an issue. But for developers or in-house applications, this can be a giant PITA from an IT administration POV. Though if you're running a Mac, chances are the 3rd party apps or in-house would be web based anyways...soo...moot point really.

[GoodBytes]

2 minutes ago, StDragon said:

Since the days of Vista (yes, that edition was awful), MS implemented UAC (User Access Control) which was was their equivalent of sudo in Linux. It works reasonably well, but not if the user elevates the permission when prompted by malware. It all comes down to PEBCAK. Often I see malware in Excel files with directions informing the user to enable. Explicit instructions for running ransomware without the user being aware it's ransomware.

 

With the right social engineering and presented instructions, you can get user with Admin level access to have their computer 0wned; limitations be damned! In the end, you either have access to admin level privileges, or you don't.

UAC is best seen as your last line of defense. Not the main protection system.

 

2 minutes ago, StDragon said:

I do give Apple credit in regards to having the default of only allowing signed applications. But recently, Apple made it difficult to run un-signed code. For the vast majority of users, this won't be an issue. But for developers or in-house applications, this can be a giant PITA from an IT administration POV. Though if you're running a Mac, chances are the 3rd party apps or in-house would be web based anyways...soo...moot point really.

 

Yea, Microsoft tried that... it didn't go well. People were blasting Microsoft that they will lock down the OS.

That said, the option is there.

 

That also said, Apple is also open to the same attack (virus/malware in Excel/PDF/etc) as Windows.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

I don’t see this behavior in Windows? How have other operating systems implemented this? 

Try editing any system files as a mundane user, im done talking.