Total (Drek) Request Live!
Today, however, I'm making an exception. I am, indeed, taking reader wishes into account for today's post. Have I turned over a new leaf? Oh, hell no. I'm still the same disagreeable asshole I've always been. I know you would miss me if I suddenly got all nice. No, I'm making an exception out of sheer, unbridled self-interest. You see, a while back I wrote a post describing certain computer problems I was experiencing. For obvious reasons, this was not the most thrilling post of all time, but I wrote it all the same. It was cast into the internet as a message in a bottle might be cast into the ocean, and I fully expected to never hear from it again.
Not even a postcard. You know- just to say "hi."
Well, turns out I was wrong because during my most recent absence, about which I still have to blog, this post was discovered by another poor soul who, as it turns out, has the same bloody problem. He, or she, asked me in a comment to post the answer to this particular computer glitch. I have certainly been willing, but with my usual negligence haven't been in any real hurry to do so.
Turns out my anonymous commenter isn't so easily deterred. The same gentleman, or lady, who goes by "Gambit" or "Random" or some other fucking handle actually e-mailed me to try and provoke a response. I have to admire the persistence, really I do... which is about the only reason I'm not posting his e-mail address to fetish porn mailing lists.
Ok, seriously, I actually wouldn't do that, just like I wouldn't publish the contents of an e-mail without permission. A guy can dream, though, can't he?
So, in honor of my very persistent reader, who clearly will not stop bugging me until I bow to his demands, I will explain the solution to the infamous Cyclic Redundancy Check error.
Sadly, this won't take long, as there is no solution. A cyclic redundancy check is an error checking procedure used in Windows machines to validate that a file has been copied correctly. It's roughly comparable, in computer terms, to when a human photocopies something, and compares the copy to the original to make sure the reproduction was faithful. An error in this check indicates that the computer is unable to make an accurate copy. This is bad. Very, very bad. You see, if the problem was merely that a sector had been corrupted, then the data would be destroyed or degraded, but that destroyed or degraded file could still be copied. The degraded file, anyway. A computer that can copy destroyed files has metaphysical implications that I'm not prepared to grapple with. Leaving silicon theology aside for a moment, however, the fact that you're having cyclic redundancy errors points to a cascading failure in the drive itself- either the read/write heads have been damaged, or the drive platters are no longer in a vacuum and particles of dust inside the drive are gradually digging trenches through your data. This last possibility means progressive data loss, so I'd make sure I have backups if I were you.
If any of the above is occurring, the most likely end result is that you will need to replace your hard disk and, quite likely, much of the data it contained. If you're worse off, the problem isn't with your DRIVE but is in your mainboard- possibly a problem with the IDE or SATA controllers. This is, however, unlikely since that would probably prevent the OS from booting in the first place.
On the other hand, if you don't have any cyclic redundancy errors, you may simply have some bad sectors. If this is the case you need to find them so your computer will stop trying to access what amounts to an informational black hole. Use the error checking feature available through the properties menu for your hard drive and go from there.
In any case, even in the best case scenario, you have some sort of physical damage to your drive and/or mainboard. My advice: backup your data, pull the drive, and replace it with a fresh one.