Looking for SFC tutorial...

Do you have a tutorial or instruction sheet, or whatever, to show how to use SFC and deal with the various things that need to be done? I don't know which to do and which to ignore, or even if I should take it all on trust and just eliminate anything that it finds "missing". But I've been told that I need to run it... but without knowing what it's sposed to do, I don't know how to respond.

Thanks.
:confused

 

>> Re: Looking for SFC tutorial... <<

If you want to learn more about System File Checker (SFC) the following link leads to the relevant Microsoft Knowledge Base Article which describes SFC which is a command-line utility used with the Windows File Protection (WFP) feature:

Microsoft Knowledge Base Article – 310747
Description of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System File Checker (Sfc.exe)

Related Sources/Information:
How to use the scannow SFC tool in Windows XP
(This is an excellent tutorial by Marc Liron - Microsoft MVP)
You can also download this page as a PDF file here: Scannow SFC​

Important Final Notes: You must be logged on as an administrator or as a member of the Administrators group to run System File Checker. It is also a good idea to always go directly to Microsoft Update immediately after running the System File Checker (SFC.exe)

Good Luck!

 

The short version:
System File Checker (SFC) scans and replaces any Microsoft Windows file on the computer and replaces any changed file (corrupted by malware or other means) with the correct version. It will also replace any original Windows files that are missing or deleted. This is a great command to run when you are running into an issue that is difficult to troubleshoot.

SFC will not change or delete your personal data, photos, music files or installed applications.

 

Re: Looking for SFC tutorial... oops...

I neglected to say that I need the info for Win98 SE... Is there an old KB article?

I've run it before, but it always says that so many files have been changed, that I just KNOW that it doesn't know why they've been changed! And, neither do I, in most cases!

I'm thinking of using it as a general "cleaning" utility, where I don't know if anything is really "wrong", nor what it might be; therefore I don't know if I should take all the time to replace files pointed out by SFC. Some (Most?) files have been changed by Windows, I think, and SFC seems to make its determination by comparing what it finds with what it knew to be there some time ago - it's reporting only a change, but it's up to me to know about the change (when such a change was proper and correct).

I've run a lot of things "blind", which isn't a good policy in many instances; but it's a method I think that we all use... And in the case of SFC, it brings me no joy 'cause I'm reacting to stuff about which I have no clue...

:confused

 

Thanks for the reference links. I reviewed them and found them to be more of an introduction, that is, a way to get started. But what I need is some sort of advisory as to What To Do when certain results are found.

I know I'll get told that some file has changed, or some file is missing. But I expect that files will get changed because of updates or patches. And I expect that some files will have become obsolete and removed.

I just don't know the differences! I don't want to restore some older version of a file, or restore an unnecessary file.

How do I tell the differences?

I sorta feel that this will be an extremely valuable tool, given the age of Win98 SE and it's support being lifted by MSCorp.

PS: When referring to Win98, I have to say "second edition", usually by adding the SE to the name. But I'm seeing references to Win98 Standard Edition, and I don't know what this is referencing, unless it's Win98 First Edition. Your take?

Thanks.

 

I've done some already. I looked in MS' KBs and googled, but I usually look for the specifics which trouble me, not for "standard pages" or the general stuff. I just don't like reinventing the wheel. I also realize that there are brilliant people out there, who are the ones devising this computer stuff. But sometimes those brilliant people aren't quite blessed with common sense or an ability to communicate with the rest of us!

I just KNOW that there's someone who has encountered the same situations as I have, and who has written up some reasonably simple tutorial to help me wade through it all and come out with an answer, without getting splinters from scratching my head!

I also realize that there are a billion or more web pages out there, many of which apply to this problem; but not every Search Engine has found them. Besides, if I don't use the right keywords, I might miss the Very Best Help Page in the universe.

I'm hoping that someone else has already found it and can direct me toward it.

But I will not ignore what you're suggesting -- I'll go back over that reference to see if there's some gem hidden there... And I do appreciate your help!

 

"Requested web page is not available."

What is "/gp/cwin98" ?

 

I thought I had reported that I HAVE run the tool - it's the responses I got which made me ask all these questions! It reports changed files and missing files, but gives no indication of the importance. And there were MANY of them (mostly changed files).

I explained that I realize that changed files result from updates and patches, so just because it's "changed" doesn't mean it's a bad thing or needs any corrective action.

And I expect that when some files are upgraded dramatically, they might just be renamed and the OS altered to recognize that (can't that be a "patch"?). However, SFC might not recognize it, and report that the file is missing.

I even tried searching MG's files, but there were no responses when I searched for "SFC". So I searched for "System File Checker", but the vast majority of the responses had no bearing on my question. Maybe I'm not using the MG Search feature properly...

I guess I'm not very good at stating my question or problem...

Sigh.

 

Re: Looking for /gp/cwin98

Peculiar...

When I click on the link you provided,
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/cwin98

I get this page from Microsoft:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=gp;[ln];gsstopicerror&style=error&errurl=%2fdefault.aspx%2fgp%2fcwin98

I did it twice - clicked on the provided link. I even "cut and pasted" the URL, got the same result. (The other provided links worked properly...)

 

I get the same thing, whomper. For http://support.microsoft.com/gp/cwin98
The Requested Web Page is Not Available

The SFC would change any windows files that have been updated, since the your OS disc was made. If you have had your OS installed for a long time, files get corrupted, some may have gotten accidentally deleted, and some changed by malware.
If you want to re-update your system after the SFC run, you can download a complete package here:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4131.html

Look here for some info on SFC:

• System File Checker explained (hopefully in layman’s terms)
  (by MS-MVP Rick Rogers — not an MSKB article)

• How the System File Checker baseline is established {KB 188186} Win98
• “The file was not found...” {KB 180465} Win98, Win98 SE
• SFC Extracts Incorrect File Versions {KB 192832} Win98
• SFC Identified that the Following File may Be Corrupted. File: EXTRAC32.EXE... {KB 264865} Win98
• SFP Does Not Protect Files That Are Located in the \Vmm32 Directory {KB 267689} Win ME

 

@ whomper
The working link for that page ( http://support.microsoft.com/gp/cwin98) is:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-gb;cwin98

 

First of all, thank you for asking this question! I'm running Win XP Home and while I'd seen occasional references to this tool, I'd never looked into it, understood what it did, nor how to use it and now I do! But I'm going to be using it with Win XP, not Win 98 or 98 SE. But read on...

From my reading of the material at the 2nd link (How to use the scannow SFC tool in Windows XP) in Compuable's response to your first post it sounds like the sfc tool isn't very useful or dependable in Win98 or 98 SE:

"Windows XP has the ability to protect itself from system instability caused by 3rd party software overwriting important system files. This used to be (and still is in fact), a problem with Windows 95 and Windows 98.

With the introduction of Windows Millennium Edition, Microsoft made a real effort to stop this from happening."

and "in Windows XP we have a much more refined protection of these important files...."

Reading additional material from other pages linked to (or found via an altavista search) confirmed, in fact, that using the sfc tool with Win98/SE often (maybe even usually) gives unreliable results. One user complained that if he ran it multiple times he got different files showing up as suspect each time he ran it.

Apparently while Microsoft fixed a few problems with the sfc tool in the move from Win 98 to Win 98 SE, the results of an sfc scan still weren't very trustworthy. Your own experience using the tool with Win 98 SE confirms this apparently. My guess is that while sfc was a good idea in theory, there were basic flaws in Win 98/98 SE design that just didn't allow the idea to be implemented properly.

I think all this indicates pretty clearly that sfc is not a very reliable tool for Win 98/98 SE use because of the very problems you're experiencing -- that the tool as implemented in Win98 really isn't very good at accurately distinguishing between a corrupt file and a file that was actually modified/updated by Microsoft via a hotfix, service pack or other Windows update. And given that MS no longer supports 98 or 98SE those problems are surely not going to be fixed now. Furthermore, if there were some relatively easy way to figure out which files really needed to be restored and which could be left alone, MS would surely have modified the tool to do that.

No doubt MS could have done more to shore up sfc in Win 98 but apparently they felt, at some point, that they just weren't really going to be able to make it a useful and reliable tool running under 98 code. MS haters will, of course, say they could have, they just didn't want to. Whichever side you're on in that sort of argument, the fact is, apparently, that the sfc tool in Win 98/98 SE is badly broken and, as far as I could determine, there's no reliable way to filter the results of an sfc scan to know which files you should attempt to restore and which you should leave alone.

I don't mean to discourage you from running an old MS operating system. I really liked 98 SE and once I get around to setting up some virtual machine software on my system I expect to install a copy of Win 98 SE, mostly to run some old favorite games that won't run properly under XP. I'm neither a MS hater nor a MS True Believer. I think there's plenty to criticize about MS products and policies, but the bottom line, in the case of sfc in Win98/SE, is that it isn't a very useful tool and there's no easy (or even moderately difficult) method to reliably filter the results of an sfc scan in Win98/SE. At least that's what I conclude from the admittedly small amount of reading I did on this subject online. If you do find a suggested method of filtering Win 98/SE sfc scan results please report back here as there are, no doubt, others who would benefit from that knowledge.

As for the designation Win 98 Standard Edition, I did a quick search but couldn't find anything clear and definitive. My impression is that "Standard Edition" is another term for "First Edition." If that's correct and Microsoft originated the term "Standard Edition" that's really crazy as both Second Edition and Standard Edition could be referred to as 98 SE!

Anyone else here know for certain if "98 Standard Edition" is, indeed, plain old 98/98 First Edition?

 

Okay, fellas! I got some more reading to do! And it looks like a visit to a beer tent somewhere could be beneficial!

I ran SFC once more, got a number of responses that some files might be corrupted, and more files that have been changed.

So I just "ignored" them all, so that they would end up in the logfile. I went to that, looked at change dates and whether or not the CFC was changed. I editted the log file to make it more readalbe (tabs and such) and saved it as RTF; but since RTF isn't approved by MG, I converted it to a .txt file. Maybe it'll tell me what really has been corrupted and needs re-installation; and what really has been changed in some bona fide manner. And maybe you can find some enjoyment or amusement in it.

BTW, Steve: Could you be pulling up an archived copy somewhere?

Back to my cave...

 

Eezak, thanks for your report and your observations.

I don't switch OS's gently, because even tho new ones come out in bright colors and with much fanfare, they usually have lots of aggravating things about them. If/When I upgrade my OS, it'll probably be just to Win2K, on advice of a local guru (who is so busy he's rarely around for "usual" questions).

With respect to Win98 and SFC, I think it's a question of how to get the results interpreted. Experiences from other, more advanced users, generally provides these answers. I think my answer will lie in the logfile and the examination of the changed or "might be" corrupted files, with respect to dates and other notations. Fer instance, I see a note which reflects Win98SE (i.e., 2nd ed.), so I think the change would be bona fide. But when I see some changes with notations about CFC checks which don't agree, and with dates which are so close together (the original date and the 'changed' date), I begin to wonder.

And, of course, if it ain't broke, I don't need to fix it. But how to tell if it's really broke? If the system runs alright, is there really a necessary file which has gone bad?

Of course, it would help a great deal if I knew what each file was sposed to do...

I think it's more of a problem in understanding... like with a woman... I don't really need to understand her until there's a problem, and then, of course, it's probably too late.

 

I think it's a matter of location. A member in GB could get there through Steve's link, but another in the USA couldn't. (and you and I, also couldn't)

 

"I don't switch OS's gently..." I don't either. I stuck with Win98 SE until XP came out, skipping over ME and Win2K. (Well, I did buy a laptop with ME on it and it continues to work fine, but I've upgraded absolutely none of the hardware, which was, apparently when many ME problems reared their ugly heads. But I've never run ME on any of my desktops.)

I don't much care for what I've seen of Vista and have no plans to upgrade to it either. My girlfriend bought a new Dell laptop last summer and got Vista Home Premium (or Deluxe or whatever they call it) and while it's been quite stable (as XP is, in my experience) it's awfully pokey and while I think the UAC was a good idea to shore up security, I think it was, in some respects, clumsily implemented. But the bottom line is, I don't think Vista is worth the higher prices MS is charging for a decent version of it and I see no compelling reasons to upgrade. What else can ya show me, MS? I can wait a couple more years to find out.

"And, of course, if it ain't broke, I don't need to fix it. But how to tell if it's really broke? If the system runs alright, is there really a necessary file which has gone bad?"

I think that's the really the bottom line. Prior to Win XP I just made it a habit to back up and reinstall about once a year as a general sort of alternative to cleaning accumulated crap and errors from the OS. Otherwise I fixed stuff as it came up, kept my security software up to date and kept my fingers crossed. And that seemed to work pretty well.

I think you have a lot more patience than I do, so good luck with the sfc scans and do let us know if you figure out a reliable method of filtering the scan results in Win 98/SE.

 

I'm in the US also and that link didn't work for me either.

 

I don't think I'm any more patient than someone else; maybe I just have fewer resources than they do, so I have to make do with what I got... Another problem is verbalizing (better yet, "putting into words" either verbal or written) my distinct problem.

Has anyone looked at the "all ignored" list I submitted, to see if they can figure out what should be done about those files? Frinstance, the file
> ST6UNST.EXE Ignored 6.00.8169 01/29/200 10/16/200 No <
Compare the dates, see that it was changed in just 9 mos. (Not to mention that SFC cuts off the last digit of the year!). And that string "6.00.8169" is similar to another string elsewhere, which might indicate a newer version changed by a Fix. I don't know whether to go back and put in the older version. I also don't know what the thing DOES!

I think that the string "4.10.2222" refers to a 2nd Ed. fix. So any such number higher than 4.10... sounds "official".

I recall one time ago, while running SFC and hoping to understand what was happening, I just told it to accept whatever it found and get on with life. Now I wondering if that was a good idea... and maybe that is being reflected somehow in the current list.

So here's my take on the whole episode, given that no one at MG has shouted out, "Eureka! I see it!": Maybe there's nothing to be seen. Maybe nothing is wrong anywhere. Maybe it's another tool inserted to make us think they were up to something good when they inserted it.

Having said that, I'm prepared to drop this thread and find something else to wonder about -- until such time as someone figures out that it might actually be important, and brings it up again!

Bye! :zzz