SFC ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
Take Care.
beamish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Not that I know of.

If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.

Open the Event Viewer...
Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
entries

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> Take Care.
> beamish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hello, Thanks for the replies.
I was hoping there was "something" that I could not find.
In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
Once again Thanks for the replies.
Take Care.
beamish.
"Wesley Vogel" wrote:

> Not that I know of.
>
> If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.
>
> Open the Event Viewer...
> Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
> Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
> entries
>
> --
> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>
> Wes
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> > Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> > Take Care.
> > beamish.
>

 

[galen]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> Take Care.
> beamish.

I don't think so. I've looked and this is your options for 2k and I'm
guessing probably XP as well as the help for XP says the same thing.

System File Checker:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/prork/pref_tts_paix.asp

For more information start > run > cmd > sfc /?

Galen
--

"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world
without them."

Sherlock Holmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

*How* can SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners"?

[[If System File Checker discovers that a protected file has been
overwritten, it retrieves the correct version of the file from the cache
folder (%Systemroot%\System32\Dllcache) or the Windows installation source
files, and then replaces the incorrect file. System File Checker also checks
and repopulates the cache folder. ]]
Description of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System File Checker
(Sfc.exe)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310747

[[Windows File Protection (WFP) prevents programs from replacing critical
Windows system files. Programs must not overwrite these files because they
are used by the operating system and by other programs. Protecting these
files prevents problems with programs and the operating system.]]
Description of the Windows File Protection Feature
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222193

HOW TO Verify That Windows File Protection Is Running
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814597


--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:F2D192D8-BF54-444D-A1BC-D62F8730BE0F@microsoft.com,
beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> Hello, Thanks for the replies.
> I was hoping there was "something" that I could not find.
> In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
> Once again Thanks for the replies.
> Take Care.
> beamish.
> "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
>
>> Not that I know of.
>>
>> If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.
>>
>> Open the Event Viewer...
>> Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
>> Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
>> entries
>>
>> --
>> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>>
>> Wes
>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>> In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
>> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
>>> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
>>> Take Care.
>>> beamish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hello, First a disclaimer, have not read, studied about OS or the Hardware.
Had a error in event viewer (event1000,module:netshell.dll, app.:
explorer.exe), did not consider error as a real problem. First one in months.
I did want to try and use sfc /? and sfc /scannow. Ran "sfc" installed the
disc it requested and read the changes made in event viewer. Problem
according to "sfc", "Bad Signature" changing the following files:
nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.6177 to nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.5673 and nv4_mini.sys
6.14.10.6177 to nv4_mini.sys 6.14.10.5673. Did not change any other files.
There were two different driver files listed after sfc finished; the two
above 5673 and the rest were 6177.
Had 6177 on the system for 5/6 months "no problems". I made an assumption
that at the time Nvidia first released 6177 it did not have a "digital
signer" listing.
The changes made by "sfc" to the video card driver caused the card to act
odd, some features were no longer available.
I removed the video driver and installed v 6177 from backup, works,
Then downloaded a newer driver that has a "digital signer" .7772, works.
This was the reason for my original question. Asking about the ability to
see problems listed by "sfc" before "sfc" makes changes. I consider the
"registry cleaner" comment not far out of line. I use Regseeker and
JV16PowerTools for the last two years on a WindowsME and WindowsXP machine
without problem.
Apologize for the length of the post.
Take Care.
beamish.




"Wesley Vogel" wrote:

> *How* can SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners"?
>
> [[If System File Checker discovers that a protected file has been
> overwritten, it retrieves the correct version of the file from the cache
> folder (%Systemroot%\System32\Dllcache) or the Windows installation source
> files, and then replaces the incorrect file. System File Checker also checks
> and repopulates the cache folder. ]]
> Description of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System File Checker
> (Sfc.exe)
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310747
>
> [[Windows File Protection (WFP) prevents programs from replacing critical
> Windows system files. Programs must not overwrite these files because they
> are used by the operating system and by other programs. Protecting these
> files prevents problems with programs and the operating system.]]
> Description of the Windows File Protection Feature
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222193
>
> HOW TO Verify That Windows File Protection Is Running
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814597
>
>
> --
> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>
> Wes
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> In news:F2D192D8-BF54-444D-A1BC-D62F8730BE0F@microsoft.com,
> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> > Hello, Thanks for the replies.
> > I was hoping there was "something" that I could not find.
> > In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
> > Once again Thanks for the replies.
> > Take Care.
> > beamish.
> > "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
> >
> >> Not that I know of.
> >>
> >> If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.
> >>
> >> Open the Event Viewer...
> >> Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
> >> Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
> >> entries
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hope this helps. Let us know.
> >>
> >> Wes
> >> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >> In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
> >> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> >>> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> >>> Take Care.
> >>> beamish.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You certainly have a valid point.

I have Adapter Type GeForce4 MX 440, NVIDIA compatible.
Installed Drivers nv4_disp.dll
Driver Version 6.14.10.6177

I have...
nv4_disp.dll v6.14.10.6177
and
nv4_mini.sys v6.14.10.6177

I ran File Signature Verification (sigverif.exe), you can get to it from
System Information | Tools | File Signature Verification Utility, these
were all listed as Not Signed...

File Modified Version Status
------------------ ------------ ----------- ------------
nvcpl.hlp 15/Jul/04 None Not Signed
nvwcplen.hlp 15/Jul/04 None Not Signed
nv4_disp.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvcod.dll 15/Jul/04 1.0.0.15 Not Signed
nvcodins.dll 15/Jul/04 1.0.0.15 Not Signed
nvcpl.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvmctray.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvnt4cpl.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvoglnt.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvsvc32.exe 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nvwddi.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
nv4_mini.sys 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed


--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:3A021742-38F0-4C63-BD13-0ECF45B59CC6@microsoft.com,
beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> Hello, First a disclaimer, have not read, studied about OS or the
> Hardware. Had a error in event viewer (event1000,module:netshell.dll,
> app.: explorer.exe), did not consider error as a real problem. First one
> in months. I did want to try and use sfc /? and sfc /scannow. Ran "sfc"
> installed the disc it requested and read the changes made in event
> viewer. Problem according to "sfc", "Bad Signature" changing the
> following files: nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.6177 to nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.5673
> and nv4_mini.sys
> 6.14.10.6177 to nv4_mini.sys 6.14.10.5673. Did not change any other
> files. There were two different driver files listed after sfc finished;
> the two above 5673 and the rest were 6177.
> Had 6177 on the system for 5/6 months "no problems". I made an assumption
> that at the time Nvidia first released 6177 it did not have a "digital
> signer" listing.
> The changes made by "sfc" to the video card driver caused the card to act
> odd, some features were no longer available.
> I removed the video driver and installed v 6177 from backup, works,
> Then downloaded a newer driver that has a "digital signer" .7772, works.
> This was the reason for my original question. Asking about the ability to
> see problems listed by "sfc" before "sfc" makes changes. I consider the
> "registry cleaner" comment not far out of line. I use Regseeker and
> JV16PowerTools for the last two years on a WindowsME and WindowsXP machine
> without problem.
> Apologize for the length of the post.
> Take Care.
> beamish.
>
>
>
>
> "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
>
>> *How* can SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners"?
>>
>> [[If System File Checker discovers that a protected file has been
>> overwritten, it retrieves the correct version of the file from the cache
>> folder (%Systemroot%\System32\Dllcache) or the Windows installation
>> source files, and then replaces the incorrect file. System File Checker
>> also checks and repopulates the cache folder. ]]
>> Description of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System File Checker
>> (Sfc.exe)
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310747
>>
>> [[Windows File Protection (WFP) prevents programs from replacing critical
>> Windows system files. Programs must not overwrite these files because
>> they are used by the operating system and by other programs. Protecting
>> these files prevents problems with programs and the operating system.]]
>> Description of the Windows File Protection Feature
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222193
>>
>> HOW TO Verify That Windows File Protection Is Running
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814597
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>>
>> Wes
>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>> In news:F2D192D8-BF54-444D-A1BC-D62F8730BE0F@microsoft.com,
>> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
>>> Hello, Thanks for the replies.
>>> I was hoping there was "something" that I could not find.
>>> In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
>>> Once again Thanks for the replies.
>>> Take Care.
>>> beamish.
>>> "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that I know of.
>>>>
>>>> If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.
>>>>
>>>> Open the Event Viewer...
>>>> Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
>>>> Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
>>>> entries
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>>>>
>>>> Wes
>>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>>
>>>> In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
>>>> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
>>>>> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
>>>>> Take Care.
>>>>> beamish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hello, I do appreciate you taking the time and making an effort to assist
people.
I will keep the new driver v 7772.
I removed my games several months ago, but the other day bought a Belkin
Nostromo Speedpad. Thought I would give it a try out.
Take Care.
beamish.

"Wesley Vogel" wrote:

> You certainly have a valid point.
>
> I have Adapter Type GeForce4 MX 440, NVIDIA compatible.
> Installed Drivers nv4_disp.dll
> Driver Version 6.14.10.6177
>
> I have...
> nv4_disp.dll v6.14.10.6177
> and
> nv4_mini.sys v6.14.10.6177
>
> I ran File Signature Verification (sigverif.exe), you can get to it from
> System Information | Tools | File Signature Verification Utility, these
> were all listed as Not Signed...
>
> File Modified Version Status
> ------------------ ------------ ----------- ------------
> nvcpl.hlp 15/Jul/04 None Not Signed
> nvwcplen.hlp 15/Jul/04 None Not Signed
> nv4_disp.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvcod.dll 15/Jul/04 1.0.0.15 Not Signed
> nvcodins.dll 15/Jul/04 1.0.0.15 Not Signed
> nvcpl.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvmctray.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvnt4cpl.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvoglnt.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvsvc32.exe 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nvwddi.dll 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
> nv4_mini.sys 15/Jul/04 6.14.10.6177 Not Signed
>
>
> --
> Hope this helps. Let us know.
>
> Wes
> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> In news:3A021742-38F0-4C63-BD13-0ECF45B59CC6@microsoft.com,
> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> > Hello, First a disclaimer, have not read, studied about OS or the
> > Hardware. Had a error in event viewer (event1000,module:netshell.dll,
> > app.: explorer.exe), did not consider error as a real problem. First one
> > in months. I did want to try and use sfc /? and sfc /scannow. Ran "sfc"
> > installed the disc it requested and read the changes made in event
> > viewer. Problem according to "sfc", "Bad Signature" changing the
> > following files: nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.6177 to nv4_disp.dll 6.14.10.5673
> > and nv4_mini.sys
> > 6.14.10.6177 to nv4_mini.sys 6.14.10.5673. Did not change any other
> > files. There were two different driver files listed after sfc finished;
> > the two above 5673 and the rest were 6177.
> > Had 6177 on the system for 5/6 months "no problems". I made an assumption
> > that at the time Nvidia first released 6177 it did not have a "digital
> > signer" listing.
> > The changes made by "sfc" to the video card driver caused the card to act
> > odd, some features were no longer available.
> > I removed the video driver and installed v 6177 from backup, works,
> > Then downloaded a newer driver that has a "digital signer" .7772, works.
> > This was the reason for my original question. Asking about the ability to
> > see problems listed by "sfc" before "sfc" makes changes. I consider the
> > "registry cleaner" comment not far out of line. I use Regseeker and
> > JV16PowerTools for the last two years on a WindowsME and WindowsXP machine
> > without problem.
> > Apologize for the length of the post.
> > Take Care.
> > beamish.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
> >
> >> *How* can SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners"?
> >>
> >> [[If System File Checker discovers that a protected file has been
> >> overwritten, it retrieves the correct version of the file from the cache
> >> folder (%Systemroot%\System32\Dllcache) or the Windows installation
> >> source files, and then replaces the incorrect file. System File Checker
> >> also checks and repopulates the cache folder. ]]
> >> Description of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System File Checker
> >> (Sfc.exe)
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310747
> >>
> >> [[Windows File Protection (WFP) prevents programs from replacing critical
> >> Windows system files. Programs must not overwrite these files because
> >> they are used by the operating system and by other programs. Protecting
> >> these files prevents problems with programs and the operating system.]]
> >> Description of the Windows File Protection Feature
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222193
> >>
> >> HOW TO Verify That Windows File Protection Is Running
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814597
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hope this helps. Let us know.
> >>
> >> Wes
> >> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >> In news:F2D192D8-BF54-444D-A1BC-D62F8730BE0F@microsoft.com,
> >> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> >>> Hello, Thanks for the replies.
> >>> I was hoping there was "something" that I could not find.
> >>> In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
> >>> Once again Thanks for the replies.
> >>> Take Care.
> >>> beamish.
> >>> "Wesley Vogel" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Not that I know of.
> >>>>
> >>>> If SFC.EXE did anything it will be in the Event Viewer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Open the Event Viewer...
> >>>> Start | Run | Type: eventvwr | OK |
> >>>> Click System | Look at any Windows File Protection
> >>>> entries
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Hope this helps. Let us know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wes
> >>>> MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
> >>>>
> >>>> In news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com,
> >>>> beamish <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> hunted and pecked:
> >>>>> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> >>>>> Take Care.
> >>>>> beamish.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:49207471-0B4B-4B83-A3EF-9A955DED7CE9@microsoft.com...
> Hello, Can SFC be setup to run and only create a log file?
> Take Care.
> beamish.

There are switches for a lot of Windows items ran at the command prompt. use
the switch ? to see them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

=?Utf-8?B?YmVhbWlzaA==?= wrote:
>
> In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".

You're comparing apples to sharks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hello, Passing by: From who"s perspective?
Adam and Eve. (apple)
California "fungus" spray scare.(apple)
U.S.S. Indianapolis CA-35(shark)

Take Care.
beamish.



"Plato" wrote:

> =?Utf-8?B?YmVhbWlzaA==?= wrote:
> >
> > In some ways SFC can be more of a danger then some "registry cleaners".
>
> You're comparing apples to sharks.
>
>
>