Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)
Yes that was the file. I just told windows it was fine as I read that
was common for that to be picked up afterwards. I guess I could give it
a go though but I always get confused with extracting a file from
somewhere. I will follow your instructions and see what happens
PCR Wrote:
> Could it have been... setupx.dll...?...
>
> http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp?fr=0&SD=GN&LN=EN-US MSKB
> Search "setupx.dll"; Windows 98; Full Text; Exact Phrase; does produce
> many. Better go look, just to see the kind of errors that would pop up
> if you really had a bad one. If you experience no other "setupx.dll"
> problem, then do the easier solution in...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4sb2m
> Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second Edition
> (231793) - After you install Windows 98 Second Edition, you may be
> notified by the System File Checker tool (SFC) that the Setupx.dll
> file
> is corrupted.
>
> Here is how to replace it, if necessary...
>
> SETUPX.DLL
> Desc: Windows Setup Functions
> Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
> Size: 745,168 bytes
> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
> Ver: 4.10.2222
>
> That is old enough (in Win98SE) never to have been modified by an
> update. So, extract it with SFC.
>
> (1) "START, Run, SFC"
> (2) Bolt "Extract one file from installation disk"
> (3) Enter "SETUPX.DLL" in the "Specify..." box.
> (4) Click "Start".
> (5) It should offer to "Save file in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM".
> If not, make it so.
> (6) In "Restore from", if not already pre-filled, browse to
> (a) Installation CD (likely the Win98 folder) or
> (b) The folder that has your cabs on the hard drive, likely
> "C:\WINDOWS\options\cabs\".
> (7) Click "OK"
>
> If it discovers the file already exists, it will offer to back it up.
> May as well do so. If it discovers the file is "in use", it will
> request
> that you reboot to complete the install.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q185836
> System File Checker
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q188186
> SFC baseline
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q192832
> SFC extracts wrong file
> http://www.westelcom.com/users/rogersr/sfc.htm SFC use & problems
> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/using_sfc.html SFC use & problems
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com wrote in message
> news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com...
> |
> | I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use
> Norton.
> | I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question
> mark).
> | When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
> | other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and
> I
> | read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often
> finds
> | fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.
> |
> |
> | Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
> | Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system file,
> you
> | aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
> | procedure
> | is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
> | files.
> | (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you
> have
> | came from.)
> |
> | Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS MVP Shell/User
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> |
> | "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in
> message
> | news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
> |
> | So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part
> of
> | a
> | essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
> | starts-
> | repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
> | clusters
> | or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
> |
> |
> | Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
> | It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd either
> | have
> | to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to
> save
> | copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
> |
> | I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to
> possibly
> | find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
> | documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
> | data
> | that can be used as is.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS MVP Shell/User
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> |
> | "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
> | message--
> | news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
> |
> | That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
> | them-
> | I-
> | should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
> | mark).-
> | Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what
> I-
> | want-
> | to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
> | deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
> | incase---
> | it-
> | alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with
> doing
> | that so I skip.
> |
> |
> | PCR Wrote:-
> | "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
> | news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> | |
> | | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters
> | are
> | | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
> | middle--
> | with
> | | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the
> line
> | the
> | | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it
> up
> | are no
> | | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
> | those--
> | | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
> | recognizably
> | | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
> | reset
> | | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
> | incorrectly
> | | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
> | over
> | | becoming Lost Clusters.
> | |
> | | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be--
> | read--
> | in
> | | part or in whole.
> | |
> | | WOE.
> | | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
> | | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
> | | have ever read.
> | | Each line was an edification.
> | |
> | | **accolades**
> | |
> | | regards Jane
> |
> | I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
> | offered!
> |
> | --
> | Thanks or Good Luck,
> | There may be humor in this post, and,
> | Naturally, you will not sue,
> | should things get worse after this,
> | PCR
> | pcrrcp@netzero.net-
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE--
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE-
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE
--
PSYCHOPIXIE
Yes that was the file. I just told windows it was fine as I read that
was common for that to be picked up afterwards. I guess I could give it
a go though but I always get confused with extracting a file from
somewhere. I will follow your instructions and see what happens
PCR Wrote:
> Could it have been... setupx.dll...?...
>
> http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp?fr=0&SD=GN&LN=EN-US MSKB
> Search "setupx.dll"; Windows 98; Full Text; Exact Phrase; does produce
> many. Better go look, just to see the kind of errors that would pop up
> if you really had a bad one. If you experience no other "setupx.dll"
> problem, then do the easier solution in...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4sb2m
> Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second Edition
> (231793) - After you install Windows 98 Second Edition, you may be
> notified by the System File Checker tool (SFC) that the Setupx.dll
> file
> is corrupted.
>
> Here is how to replace it, if necessary...
>
> SETUPX.DLL
> Desc: Windows Setup Functions
> Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
> Size: 745,168 bytes
> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
> Ver: 4.10.2222
>
> That is old enough (in Win98SE) never to have been modified by an
> update. So, extract it with SFC.
>
> (1) "START, Run, SFC"
> (2) Bolt "Extract one file from installation disk"
> (3) Enter "SETUPX.DLL" in the "Specify..." box.
> (4) Click "Start".
> (5) It should offer to "Save file in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM".
> If not, make it so.
> (6) In "Restore from", if not already pre-filled, browse to
> (a) Installation CD (likely the Win98 folder) or
> (b) The folder that has your cabs on the hard drive, likely
> "C:\WINDOWS\options\cabs\".
> (7) Click "OK"
>
> If it discovers the file already exists, it will offer to back it up.
> May as well do so. If it discovers the file is "in use", it will
> request
> that you reboot to complete the install.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q185836
> System File Checker
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q188186
> SFC baseline
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q192832
> SFC extracts wrong file
> http://www.westelcom.com/users/rogersr/sfc.htm SFC use & problems
> http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/using_sfc.html SFC use & problems
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com wrote in message
> news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1kt70d@news.win98banter.com...
> |
> | I think out of habit and because it's on my desktop I always use
> Norton.
> | I gather that sfc would pick up on damaged system files(question
> mark).
> | When I installed win98se back over itself sfc told me something or
> | other needed to be sorted out but I forget the name of the file and
> I
> | read on the microsoft site that it after installation sfc often
> finds
> | fault with that particlar file when there is nothing wrong.
> |
> |
> | Gary S. Terhune Wrote:
> | Lost Clusters can be part of *any* file. But if it's a system file,
> you
> | aren't likely to be able to put it back together. The correct
> | procedure
> | is to extract a new copy from Windows or Internet Explorer Setup
> | files.
> | (Or from elsewhere, actually--wherever the version of he file you
> have
> | came from.)
> |
> | Windows Scandisk picks up on Lost Clusters just fine.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS MVP Shell/User
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> |
> | "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com wrote in
> message
> | news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1ko3ny@news.win98banter.com...-
> |
> | So can lost clusters be part of something important then? ie part
> of
> | a
> | essential windows program? I will 'save' from now on when norton-
> | starts-
> | repairing. Does the windows scan disk program pick up on lost
> | clusters
> | or am I better off sticking to my norton disk doctor?
> |
> |
> | Gary S. Terhune Wrote:-
> | It *is* possible to put these files back together. But you'd either
> | have
> | to learn how, yourself, or take it to a pro. You'd also want to
> save
> | copies of cross-linked files before repairing them.
> |
> | I look into the files using a plain-text editor in order to
> possibly
> | find out what they are. Particularly if they are image of text
> | documents, even lost fragments can contain a significant amount of
> | data
> | that can be used as is.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS MVP Shell/User
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> |
> | "PSYCHOPIXIE" PSYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com wrote in--
> | message--
> | news😛SYCHOPIXIE.1kn6bz@news.win98banter.com...-
> |
> | That's good news then. Although does that mean when norton fixes
> | them-
> | I-
> | should be saving the lost clusters rather than deleting(question-
> | mark).-
> | Norton does it's whole fixing thing and then asks afterwards what
> I-
> | want-
> | to do with them. I sometimes save and sometimes allow them to be
> | deleted. Norton also offers to make some sort of back up file--
> | incase---
> | it-
> | alters and does something naughty but I can't be bothered with
> doing
> | that so I skip.
> |
> |
> | PCR Wrote:-
> | "jane" jane@internet.com wrote in message
> | news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> | |
> | | No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters
> | are
> | | files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a--
> | middle--
> | with
> | | no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the
> line
> | the
> | | integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it
> up
> | are no
> | | longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are--
> | those--
> | | which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
> | recognizably
> | | belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
> | reset
> | | or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get
> | incorrectly
> | | linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left
> | over
> | | becoming Lost Clusters.
> | |
> | | Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be--
> | read--
> | in
> | | part or in whole.
> | |
> | | WOE.
> | | I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
> | | That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
> | | have ever read.
> | | Each line was an edification.
> | |
> | | **accolades**
> | |
> | | regards Jane
> |
> | I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
> | offered!
> |
> | --
> | Thanks or Good Luck,
> | There may be humor in this post, and,
> | Naturally, you will not sue,
> | should things get worse after this,
> | PCR
> | pcrrcp@netzero.net-
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE--
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE-
> |
> |
> | --
> | PSYCHOPIXIE
--
PSYCHOPIXIE
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram