Corrupted File

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

If I want to run sfc /scannow and the message states to insert the XP CD and
I have a Compaq Presario 2700T laptop with 3 Quick Restore CD's ( brings
back the system to an operating state). Is this an XP reinstallation CD and
if so how do I know which of the 3 CD's to insert?
 
Greetings --

When the System File Checker prompts you for the CD, the dialog
box should offer you the opportunity to specify an alternative
location for the source of the needed files. You should also have a
C:\i386 folder, if Compaq had any sense. Simply point the SFC to this
folder.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
 
I too have a PC with a number of "restore" disks, however, only one of them
has the MS XP logo, ergo, it's the XP disk.

Given that I have ongoing irritating problems, thought I'd check out your
solution for myself.
I ran CMD, then in the DOS box, reverted to root C:\, typed "sfc/scannow".

There is NO option to source the files from anywhere except the CD -
pointing to another source is not an option..

One worrying point - since I've kept up-to-date with updates - SFC dialog
reads (not exact) Checking ORIGINAL Windows Protected Files for corruption
and correct location" - given the plethora of XP updates, does this mean I
have inadvertently restored a 2 year-old set-up, now have to download
several hours-worth of updates ? If not (and I hope not) then the text in
this box needs to reflect the "sfc" action more accurately.

You've added to my knowledge, so, thanks. But - as a "learner", have I too
much info and too little knowledge ? What is the correct usage of sfc ?

Sincerely, Len
 
There is NO option to source the files from anywhere except the CD -
pointing to another source is not an option..
Click to expand...

There are source paths stored in the registry. SFC will use those. The
option to select a source only appears when needed. I've used SFC a few
times. Have the original XP installed with SP1 added. I have personally
used the "source" dialog to redirect it to the Windows\ServicePackFiles
folder. Then had to redirect it back to the XP CD again.

If you are using a version of XP that included the SP1 files, it would only
have to check one source. In that case, it is very likely that you would
not be prompted for a source since there is only one.

After running SFC, I revisit the Update site. The presence of an update is
detected in various manners: registry entries, presence of certain file
versions. So Windows Update does sometimes prompt to install an update
again. Usually at this point you are current with the file versions for the
most critical updates.

If you want to dig a little deeper, HFNetchk and MSBSA (MS Base Security
Analyzer) are good tools to run too. They will catch most other other files
that SFC might have overwritten with with older files. Both of those tools
are available for downloading from the Download center here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx

The point of using SFC is to get good working copies of core system files
when you suspect there has been damage from viruses, hardware trouble etc.
Even though you may have to play catchup with some updates, the basic
functionality of any files replaced by SFC should be restored.
 
Sharon, my XP (HE) installation is now 2 years old (re-installed once, early
days). SP1 installed when it became available, somewhat later. So, unlike
yours, my XP CD did/does not have SP1 included.

Your explanation has seemingly conflicting statements (most unusual for you,
I may add)
1/ ".... source paths stored in the registry - SFC will use those (option to
select only appears when needed)" implication being that source paths
(should be) updated in the registry.
2/ "You have personally used the source dialog to redirect ..." (which
conflicts with 1/ , in itself a conflict - either the paths are stored, or
not - either way, the stored path in my set-up is the XP CD, with no option
to redirect).

When I ran SFC (from a CMD DOS window) the ONLY source possible was the XP
CD - not editable.

Plus - it ran for some considerable time, then just closed at end with no
comment (should there not be a courtesy "No Problem found" (or "problem
fixed" info message, for courtesy?). That would reassure users, who have
posted same concern.

I do run MBSA, fairly often. Last run, same probs as before, posted before -
answer was the "problems" it highlighted are still probs, to be fixed in
SP2.
Sorry to be a pain, but my aged brain (poetry, yet!) can't quite grasp what
you say, on this occasion
Sincerely, Len
 
Sharon, my XP (HE) installation is now 2 years old (re-installed once, early
days). SP1 installed when it became available, somewhat later. So, unlike
yours, my XP CD did/does not have SP1 included.
Click to expand...

Hmm, sorry. Must not have explained it clearly enough. My situation is the
same as yours: installation created from an original XP CD. SP1 added
later.
Your explanation has seemingly conflicting statements (most unusual for you,
I may add)
1/ ".... source paths stored in the registry - SFC will use those (option to
select only appears when needed)" implication being that source paths
(should be) updated in the registry
Click to expand...

The source paths in this situation are: One for the source at the time XP
was installed. One for when SP1 was installed. These are used by both
Windows File Protection (which appears to see and use both source paths)
and supposedly by SFC. However in my experience, SFC has not seen the path
to servicepackfiles or it was unable to use that path on my system for a
reason unknown to me.
2/ "You have personally used the source dialog to redirect ..." (which
conflicts with 1/ , in itself a conflict - either the paths are stored, or
not - either way, the stored path in my set-up is the XP CD, with no option
to redirect).
Click to expand...

I use the Command prompt window for the sfc command too. The XP CD is
already in the CDrom drive before starting.

--SFC runs from start to end. No prompts. Watching the text in the command
prompt window, no replacements were made or they were made and the needed
files were accessible to SFC.

--SFC pauses, a gui dialog box appears and prompts for a source. It is
showing the drive with XP CD in the drop down box. So what other source do
I have for a WinXP installation? My SP1 files. Selecting the folder and
clicking OK, SFC continues.

--SFC continues. It again pauses (after being directed to the SP1 folder)
and wants a source again. So where can it be pointed? Back to the XP CD.

--Repeating the redirections when SFC requested a source until the tool
finally finishes.

--Running the tool one more time to make sure it got all the replacements
it needed and I am concerned about that having been accomplished after all
of the switching around from one source to another. When this run completes
successfully it finishes with no prompts.

Again, I have no idea why SFC does not pick up on the path for the Service
Pack Files (but Windows File Protection does). Or maybe SFC does pick this
up but -for whatever reason - couldn't find the target on my system for
some reason.

This is the important part:

Instead of *failing or skipping files* that it could not find, I was asked
for a source and the dialog box that appeared gave me the controls to
select it. I thinks it's reasonable to expect the same thing to occur on
anyone else's system if there was a file needing replacing and SFC couldn't
find a source.
Plus - it ran for some considerable time, then just closed at end with no
comment (should there not be a courtesy "No Problem found" (or "problem
fixed" info message, for courtesy?). That would reassure users, who have
posted same concern.
Click to expand...

I agree and also think it's odd that there are no finishing comments from
SFC. But as we have seen from using it, it is the normal mode of operation
for this tool. If you see SFC start and it finishes without any visible
events that demand attention from the user, you can safely conclude that
the operation is complete and that whatever needed doing has been done.
 
Sharon, you have the patience of a saint !!
Sincerely, LEN
PS - have been having great difficulty keeping track of postings separated
by hundreds of messages (did get the trick of "watching" also, "watched"
messages are now blue, not black). Have JUST discovered, almost by accident,
that I can filter messages by the "watched" symbol ... all "watched messages
now at top of list. Life is SO much easier now ...
 
Sharon, you have the patience of a saint !!
Sincerely, LEN
PS - have been having great difficulty keeping track of postings separated
by hundreds of messages (did get the trick of "watching" also, "watched"
messages are now blue, not black). Have JUST discovered, almost by accident,
that I can filter messages by the "watched" symbol ... all "watched messages
now at top of list. Life is SO much easier now ...
Click to expand...

More OE tips for you:

In View, select Current View> Show Replies to My Messages (to reverse
remove check)

OR - use the keyboard shortcut to apply the view: Ctrl+H (to reverse,
press Ctrl+H again)

OR - use a small OE add on called "OE Tools." This little gem adds a small
toolbar to OE. Among other useful buttons, there is one that toggles the
"replies to my messages" view on and off.
http://www.oehelp.com/OETool/Default.aspx

Another good addon to use with Outlook Express is OE-Quote Fix:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

OE is known to be sloppy in its quoting mechanisms. This can make it
difficult to read posts that contain several levels of quoting. When
running OE Quote Fix, it will display each level of quoting in a different
color. The colors are displayed on the fly on your monitor only. They are
not added to the actual messages. The program also helps to neaten up the
quotes that are added to replies that the user creates.

Both of these tools are freebies.
 
Sharon, take 15 seconds break - answer this one.

You are driving a bus from Shefford to Hitchin, and start with 20 passengers
At Clifton, 8 get off, 5 passengers get on.
Arriving at Henlow, 3 get off, another 8 get on.
At Arlesey, 4 get off, 7 get on.
10 minutes later, the bus arrives at Hitchin.

What's the name of the bus driver?

Answer in next post.
( This by way of a "thank you" - it's a good party puzzler, impacts far
better, orally).
 
Answer was easy but I'll leave it for "Sharon" to answer :)

Len Dolby said:
Sharon, take 15 seconds break - answer this one.

You are driving a bus from Shefford to Hitchin, and start with 20
passengers
At Clifton, 8 get off, 5 passengers get on.
Arriving at Henlow, 3 get off, another 8 get on.
At Arlesey, 4 get off, 7 get on.
10 minutes later, the bus arrives at Hitchin.

What's the name of the bus driver?

Answer in next post.
( This by way of a "thank you" - it's a good party puzzler, impacts far
better, orally).
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I know - but try it in conversation without benefit of written text !
Classic example of "can't see the wood for the trees" - mind gets bogged
down in detail.... I've several more "lateral-thinks" if you want them - is
yr e_mail correct? Won't send if you don't ask - enough SPAM without
me adding to it !
Sincerely, LEN

wojo said:
Answer was easy but I'll leave it for "Sharon" to answer :)
Click to expand...
 
Yeah it's correct. I use that one for everything non-personal, ya know.
Your right now that I think about it if I didn't have the opportunity to
actually READ it I'm not sure I would have gotten it.
 
Answer - Sharon ("YOU are driving ...")
Easy when it's written, but try it in a group conversation ....
Surprising how many big IQ's fall into the trap of useless detail!!
Sincerely, Len



Len Dolby said:
Sharon, take 15 seconds break - answer this one.

You are driving a bus from Shefford to Hitchin, and start with 20 passengers
At Clifton, 8 get off, 5 passengers get on.
Arriving at Henlow, 3 get off, another 8 get on.
At Arlesey, 4 get off, 7 get on.
10 minutes later, the bus arrives at Hitchin.

What's the name of the bus driver?

Answer in next post.
( This by way of a "thank you" - it's a good party puzzler, impacts far
better, orally).
Click to expand...
 
Answer - Sharon ("YOU are driving ...")
Easy when it's written, but try it in a group conversation ....
Surprising how many big IQ's fall into the trap of useless detail!!
Click to expand...

When I'm not at the computer, I'm painting. Learned a long time ago that it
is very helpful to take two steps back (and a break) before trying to
assess a canvas. In PC terms: the same lesson was driven home years ago
when the cat was behind the PC playing with wires. He managed to pull out
the plug to the PC speakers. Took me hours of sound troubleshooting to
solve that one.

Now if the sound isn't right, it's the first thing I check. :)
 
Painting, huh ? Did you know ( it's a medical fact) that 48% of males are
colour-blind, but only 2% of females are ? And, the majority (>90%) are
RED/GREEN colour-blind ? This has relevance. Top of my wish-list is that
web-designers would take this into account. Example. I can't see red
lettering
on any background colour other than white or yellow (on which red appears
to me to be black) so web pages which have intense colour background
with non-black or non-brilliant white text are effectively illegible to me.

This had a profound effect on my career choice when I left school. From
the age of 10, I built radios from Dad's (1920's) parts. In those days, wire
connections were screw terminals, and resistors/capacitors had text-printed
values. Early 1950's, along came transistors and miniaturisation - and
COLOUR-coding ... so ended my aspiration to a career in electronics,
became a tax-man instead.

Which does not imply I am a philistine. I enjoy good pictures, those which
exhibit form and grace, rather than overwhelming reliance on colour usage
at the expense of line definition and perspective. Enjoy doing jig-saws,
too -
the challenge of the mechanics (fitting-together of the pieces) over-rides
the colour-sight problem.

Hope I'm not boring you with irrelevancies. Key to these ramblings is that
you are in a position to influence web-designers to improve output to
address
all viewers, rather than just 50%, by considerate colour usage in their
pages..

We don't (can't) use sites we cannot read, ergo, those sites lose our
custom.

Feel free to use/paraphrase this text to support the argument to benefit all
us afflicted persons, if you so choose. Keep your palette clean !

Sincerely, Len.
 
Back
Top