Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!ward
From: ward@chinet.UUCP (ward)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Beware: chkdsk /f
Message-ID: <1344@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 22:19:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1344
Posted: Mon Jul 27 22:19:10 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 05:16:44 EDT
References: <1333@chinet.UUCP> <5698@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: ward@chinet.UUCP (Ward Christensen-)
Distribution: na
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 22
Keywords: back-ups DOS chkdsk PC

What do I mean "actually good" files?  I mean something like this:
<- good directory entries, lets call them #1 thru #20 ->
  After some program or blow up and writes 00's to part of the dir, you
may have something like this:
<- #1 #2 #3 #4 {00 trash} #8 #9 ... #20 ->
My point is, "directory entries #8 ... #20" are GOOD.
  You then said:
> DOS sure can't find them; a DIR command will verify that the OS 
> considers the directory empty. Given the above format for directory 
> entries, I consider CHKDSK's action to be the only reasonable
> approach to take. You data is restored, but with in a different 
> directory with different names. You have the task of copying the 
> files back.
  My intention was to infer that by CHKDKSing, you've lost the "good"
(meaning in and of themselves, still valid "looking") directory entries.
  Solution: use a disk utility to change the 00's to e5's, thus allowing
the formerly "invisible" entries - GOOD ENTRIES, to again be what they 
are - your names for the files (not FILEnnnn.CHK with the wrong, rounded
up sizes).
  Sorry I didn't make that point clear in the original message.
> Always back up.
  Of course.