SFC /scannow

[Guest Qimi]

I am trying to do a sfc /scannow but something strange is happening: I have

XP Home Edition but SFC keeps asking me to insert XP Professional when the

usual box comes up looking for DLL cache.

 

I have changed the registry to show where DLL cache is: C:\WINDOWS\system32

 

Could someone help me please?

 

Happy Easter

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

Qimi wrote:

> I am trying to do a sfc /scannow but something strange is happening: I

> have

> XP Home Edition but SFC keeps asking me to insert XP Professional when the

> usual box comes up looking for DLL cache.

>

> I have changed the registry to show where DLL cache is:

> C:\WINDOWS\system32

>

> Could someone help me please?

>

> Happy Easter

 

You changed the registry, per se? Or do you mean you changed the address

location in the box prompting you for the location?

 

But either way, the actual location is c:\windows\system32\dllcache.

[Guest TaurArian]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

This article may be of assistance -

Introduction to using scannow sfc (system file checker)

http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html

 

--

 

TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Update Services

http://taurarian.mvps.org

======================================

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Computer Maintenance: Acronis / Diskeeper / Paragon / Raxco

 

 

"Qimi" <open@closed.com> wrote in message news:OlDAIY$iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

|I am trying to do a sfc /scannow but something strange is happening: I have

| XP Home Edition but SFC keeps asking me to insert XP Professional when the

| usual box comes up looking for DLL cache.

|

| I have changed the registry to show where DLL cache is: C:\WINDOWS\system32

|

| Could someone help me please?

|

| Happy Easter

|

|

[Guest Nepatsfan]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

"Qimi" <open@closed.com> wrote in message

news:OlDAIY$iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I am trying to do a sfc /scannow but something strange is happening: I have XP

>Home Edition but SFC keeps asking me to insert XP Professional when the usual

>box comes up looking for DLL cache.

>

> I have changed the registry to show where DLL cache is: C:\WINDOWS\system32

>

> Could someone help me please?

>

> Happy Easter

>

 

 

See if the information in this article applies to your situation.

 

You may be prompted to insert a Windows XP Professional CD when you run the

System File Checker tool in Windows XP Home Edition

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897128/en-us

 

Good luck

 

Nepatsfan

[Guest BoB]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:35:39 -0400, "Nepatsfan" <nepatsfan@SBXXXIX.com>

wrote:

>"Qimi" <open@closed.com> wrote in message

>news:OlDAIY$iIHA.4868@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>I am trying to do a sfc /scannow but something strange is happening: I have XP

>>Home Edition but SFC keeps asking me to insert XP Professional when the usual

>>box comes up looking for DLL cache.

>>

>> I have changed the registry to show where DLL cache is: C:\WINDOWS\system32

>>

>> Could someone help me please?

>>

>> Happy Easter

>>

>

>

>See if the information in this article applies to your situation.

>

>You may be prompted to insert a Windows XP Professional CD when you run the

>System File Checker tool in Windows XP Home Edition

>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897128/en-us

>

>Good luck

>

>Nepatsfan

 

Since my Dell wanted the an XP CD inserted when I tried SFC. Following

897128, I changed Professional to Home in both locations of Fp40ext.inf.

Ims.inf was already marked Home, not Professional.

 

SFC still asked for the XP CD but continued when I chose to ignore. SFC

was extremely slow compared to Win98SE. It 'said' nothing when it

finished, so I can only assume it found nothing wrong.

 

Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

 

BoB

[Guest PD43]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

 

Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

did you run it?

 

Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

[Guest Big Al]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

PD43 wrote:

> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>

>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>

> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

> did you run it?

>

> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

I'm asking innocently. I've been reading the F1 help on sfc and as

usual, Microsoft makes it a bit unclear as to why to run this. Is see

it "fixes" dll's. But again, is there harm in running it without

errors. Would there be a "display only" mode?

 

I'm still browsing other links in this thread, so they may add fuel to

the fire.

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

SFC can't really do damage. It's over rated as a diagnostic utility.

Windows File Protection monitors & replaces any of the system

content that gets replaced automatically. SFC is handy for rebuilding

the DllCache folder. But unless the user has dismissed a warning

about a system file being replaced and opted to not allow a restore

then SFC isn't going to find much to fix.

 

"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:YfXFj.1772$Ew5.1106@trnddc04...

> PD43 wrote:

>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>>

>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

>> did you run it?

>>

>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

> So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

> I'm asking innocently. I've been reading the F1 help on sfc and as usual,

> Microsoft makes it a bit unclear as to why to run this. Is see it

> "fixes" dll's. But again, is there harm in running it without errors.

> Would there be a "display only" mode?

>

> I'm still browsing other links in this thread, so they may add fuel to the

> fire.

>

[Guest PD43]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

Big Al <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote:

>PD43 wrote:

>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>>

>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

>> did you run it?

>>

>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

>

>So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

 

Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

[Guest Big Al]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

PD43 wrote:

> Big Al <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

>> PD43 wrote:

>>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

>>> did you run it?

>>>

>>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

>> So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

>

> Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

 

The last paragraph, "your choice to run it..."

Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much. I saw R. McCarty's

reply.

[Guest Big Al]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

PD43 wrote:

> Big Al <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

>> PD43 wrote:

>>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

>>> did you run it?

>>>

>>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

>> So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

>

> Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

 

And in general, my lack of knowledge of the SFC command made me wonder

despite your message. Microsoft F1 help did little to explain any

possible negative side effects. I run chkdsk once in a while but I

know what it does and how to run it. SFC, not so.

[Guest BoB]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:05:19 -0400, "R. McCarty"

<PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>SFC can't really do damage. It's over rated as a diagnostic utility.

>Windows File Protection monitors & replaces any of the system

>content that gets replaced automatically. SFC is handy for rebuilding

>the DllCache folder. But unless the user has dismissed a warning

>about a system file being replaced and opted to not allow a restore

>then SFC isn't going to find much to fix.

 

After reading up on Windows File Protection it sounds like I'm pretty

well covered so I have no need for SFC. Win98 had no automatic

protection like that so I occasionally had to do system file restores

from my backup of the Win folder. Newer freeware/shareware appears

to be better written in this context when compared to the '90's.

 

Thanks to all for the info.

 

BoB

 

>"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message

>news:YfXFj.1772$Ew5.1106@trnddc04...

>> PD43 wrote:

>>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.

>>>

>>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY

>>> did you run it?

>>>

>>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.

>> So are you saying that sfc can do damage?

>> I'm asking innocently. I've been reading the F1 help on sfc and as usual,

>> Microsoft makes it a bit unclear as to why to run this. Is see it

>> "fixes" dll's. But again, is there harm in running it without errors.

>> Would there be a "display only" mode?

>>

>> I'm still browsing other links in this thread, so they may add fuel to the

>> fire.

>>

>

[Guest Calab]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

 

"BoB" <me@box.invalid> wrote in message

news:jvtiu3d56d6v1fvi827h66ggk67n4bfp60@4ax.com...

| On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:05:19 -0400, "R. McCarty"

| <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

|

| >SFC can't really do damage. It's over rated as a diagnostic utility.

| >Windows File Protection monitors & replaces any of the system

| >content that gets replaced automatically. SFC is handy for rebuilding

| >the DllCache folder. But unless the user has dismissed a warning

| >about a system file being replaced and opted to not allow a restore

| >then SFC isn't going to find much to fix.

|

| After reading up on Windows File Protection it sounds like I'm pretty

| well covered so I have no need for SFC. Win98 had no automatic

| protection like that so I occasionally had to do system file restores

| from my backup of the Win folder. Newer freeware/shareware appears

| to be better written in this context when compared to the '90's.

 

I can say that SFC has repaired WinXP machines before.

 

Just last month my wife could play any of the games included with XP, as

well as having some other general issues.

 

Ran SFC and the machine is 100% normal again.

[Guest BoB]

Re: SFC /scannow

 

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:51:22 -0600, "Calab" <myspam@csd.ca> wrote:

>

>"BoB" <me@box.invalid> wrote in message

>news:jvtiu3d56d6v1fvi827h66ggk67n4bfp60@4ax.com...

>| On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:05:19 -0400, "R. McCarty"

>| <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>|

>| >SFC can't really do damage. It's over rated as a diagnostic utility.

>| >Windows File Protection monitors & replaces any of the system

>| >content that gets replaced automatically. SFC is handy for rebuilding

>| >the DllCache folder. But unless the user has dismissed a warning

>| >about a system file being replaced and opted to not allow a restore

>| >then SFC isn't going to find much to fix.

>|

>| After reading up on Windows File Protection it sounds like I'm pretty

>| well covered so I have no need for SFC. Win98 had no automatic

>| protection like that so I occasionally had to do system file restores

>| from my backup of the Win folder. Newer freeware/shareware appears

>| to be better written in this context when compared to the '90's.

>

>I can say that SFC has repaired WinXP machines before.

>

>Just last month my wife could play any of the games included with XP, as

>well as having some other general issues.

>

>Ran SFC and the machine is 100% normal again.

 

I didn't mean to imply that SFC is not effective. It can't fix something

if nothing is wrong. In Win98, SFC fixed occasional problems fine.

 

BoB