how to check windows system files integrity?

[SANTANDER]

how to check windows system files integrity? (to be sure no files has been
replaced or corrupted, after spyware screensaver removing).

thanks.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc

SANTANDER wrote:
> how to check windows system files integrity? (to be sure no files has been
> replaced or corrupted, after spyware screensaver removing).
>
> thanks.

 

[thanatoid]

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc

Well, what do you know. Thanks. It's been a long time since I
saw any useful info (and unknown to me, needless to say) posted
here.

[A few minutes later...]

Follow up question, if I may:

Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different one
ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was "bad"
(setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but backed it up to
check it later. It is /exactly/ the same as the file which
replaced it - and which was /not/ flagged by SFC as "bad",
EITHER!

Is this just another example of the quality of MS products or
what?



--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
The only cure for brilliance is death.
The only cure for love is death.
The only cure for hate is death.
Indifference needs no cure.
The only cure for life is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}

 

[thanatoid]

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9A17EC399CA0Cthanexit@66.250.146.158:

[A few minutes later...]

Just happened to do my once-a-month check on my throwaway
hotmail account.

"© 2008 Microsoft Corporation" (Only the log-in page, the others
still say 2007... Of course...)

It's not 2008 in Redmond yet!

Sigh.


--
The only cure for stupidity is death.
The only cure for brilliance is death.
The only cure for love is death.
The only cure for hate is death.
Indifference needs no cure.
The only cure for life is death.
{© 2007 thanatoid}

 

[Don Phillipson]

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
> > Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A17EC399CA0Cthanexit@66.250.146.158...

> Well, what do you know. Thanks. It's been a long time since I
> saw any useful info (and unknown to me, needless to say) posted
> here.
>
> [A few minutes later...]
>
> Follow up question, if I may:
>
> Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different one
> ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was "bad"
> (setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but backed it up to
> check it later. It is /exactly/ the same as the file which
> replaced it - and which was /not/ flagged by SFC as "bad",
> EITHER!

SFC = System File Checker is a crude tool. When you
installed Win98 the process created a checklist of CRCs
of system files: and running SFC later merely assembles
a current list of system files and compares them with
the check list. The catch is that the original list is not
updated, so if MS updates an OS file (using the same
filename) it may wrongly report itself as bad because
rightly changed. All we can do is look at file / Properties
for version number and date, to guess this point.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[dadiOH]

thanatoid wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc
>
> Well, what do you know. Thanks. It's been a long time since I
> saw any useful info (and unknown to me, needless to say) posted
> here.
>
> [A few minutes later...]
>
> Follow up question, if I may:
>
> Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different one
> ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was "bad"
> (setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but backed it up to
> check it later. It is /exactly/ the same as the file which
> replaced it - and which was /not/ flagged by SFC as "bad",
> EITHER!
>
> Is this just another example of the quality of MS products or
> what?

Probably karma for having a hotmail account

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

[thanatoid]

"dadiOH" <dadiOH@guesswhere.com> wrote in
news:O$aP0iHTIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc
>>
>> Well, what do you know. Thanks. It's been a long time
>> since I saw any useful info (and unknown to me, needless
>> to say) posted here.
>>
>> [A few minutes later...]
>>
>> Follow up question, if I may:
>>
>> Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different
>> one ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was
>> "bad" (setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but
>> backed it up to check it later. It is /exactly/ the same
>> as the file which replaced it - and which was /not/
>> flagged by SFC as "bad", EITHER!
>>
>> Is this just another example of the quality of MS products
>> or what?
>
> Probably karma for having a hotmail account
>

:-D

Hey, I wouldn't have one but I need it for stuff which is
certain to generate junkmail etc.

I have a "secret" real pop3 account which I pay $15/year for and
which hardly /ever/ got any junk mail until the recent wave
began about 10 months ago (or something).

 

[thanatoid]

"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@rogers.com> wrote in
news:#uq1KFHTIHA.4768@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A17EC399CA0Cthanexit@66.250.146.158...

<SNIP>

>> Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different
>> one ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was
>> "bad" (setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but
>> backed it up to check it later. It is /exactly/ the same
>> as the file which replaced it - and which was /not/
>> flagged by SFC as "bad", EITHER!
>
> SFC = System File Checker is a crude tool. When you
> installed Win98 the process created a checklist of CRCs
> of system files: and running SFC later merely assembles
> a current list of system files and compares them with
> the check list. The catch is that the original list is not
> updated, so if MS updates an OS file (using the same
> filename) it may wrongly report itself as bad because
> rightly changed. All we can do is look at file /
> Properties for version number and date, to guess this
> point.

Thanks for your comment.

I thought that's basically how it worked, and "crude" is sort of
a given -)

Still, the date, size AND contents (checked with Total
Commander's "compare by content") all match EXACTLY, so it
/shouldn't/ have
flagged it.

Also, that machine has no internet connection ability and I have
never seen a change to/with that file in my InCtrl4 logs which I
use religiously with every single install ever.

Oh well...

 

[glee]

Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second Edition
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231793

--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm


"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A188520C767Dthanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@rogers.com> wrote in
> news:#uq1KFHTIHA.4768@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A17EC399CA0Cthanexit@66.250.146.158...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Besides calc.exe (which I have replaced with a different
>>> one ages ago), SFC found only one other file which was
>>> "bad" (setupx.dll) so I allowed it to replace it but
>>> backed it up to check it later. It is /exactly/ the same
>>> as the file which replaced it - and which was /not/
>>> flagged by SFC as "bad", EITHER!
>>
>> SFC = System File Checker is a crude tool. When you
>> installed Win98 the process created a checklist of CRCs
>> of system files: and running SFC later merely assembles
>> a current list of system files and compares them with
>> the check list. The catch is that the original list is not
>> updated, so if MS updates an OS file (using the same
>> filename) it may wrongly report itself as bad because
>> rightly changed. All we can do is look at file /
>> Properties for version number and date, to guess this
>> point.
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> I thought that's basically how it worked, and "crude" is sort of
> a given -)
>
> Still, the date, size AND contents (checked with Total
> Commander's "compare by content") all match EXACTLY, so it
> /shouldn't/ have
> flagged it.
>
> Also, that machine has no internet connection ability and I have
> never seen a change to/with that file in my InCtrl4 logs which I
> use religiously with every single install ever.
>
> Oh well...

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 01 Jan 2008 05:27:49 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
>news:Xns9A17EC399CA0Cthanexit@66.250.146.158:
>
>[A few minutes later...]
>
>Just happened to do my once-a-month check on my throwaway
>hotmail account.
>
>"© 2008 Microsoft Corporation" (Only the log-in page, the others
>still say 2007... Of course...)
>
>It's not 2008 in Redmond yet!
>
>Sigh.

I have a throwaway account with Yahoo. It allows for POP access via my
email client which means that I never need to visit the ad-infested
Yahoo web site. I believe that Microsoft/Hotmail also provide POP
access, but only to selected users.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[SANTANDER]

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc
>
> SANTANDER wrote:
> > how to check windows system files integrity? (to be sure no files has
been
> > replaced or corrupted, after spyware screensaver removing).
> >
> > thanks.
------
I tried run SFC, it show that plenty of files has been changed(replaced),
but this due various upgrades, usually for newer file version.
I canceled SFC after short time without waiting it finished, since it is not
possible to verify each file individually, due too many files has been
changed, so it constantly prompt for action, I always clicked 'Ignore'. (In
'Settings' I've selected check for changed and deleted files, both options,
and 'Prompt for backup').
Just noticed for some changed files which SFC has found, that it has been
changed but not for newer version, but for older. I'm not sure why this.
for example:

'hh.exe' previous version - 4.73.8412
'hh.exe' current version - 4.72.7286 - older
pidgen.dll, icwscrpt.exe, fixmapi.exe - replaced with the same version, but
curent vers. is smaller size.

and so on...

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 01 Jan 2008 18:57:45 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>I have a "secret" real pop3 account which I pay $15/year for and
>which hardly /ever/ got any junk mail until the recent wave
>began about 10 months ago (or something).

I have a free POP account with Yahoo. I didn't do anything sneaky, I
just signed up for a standard account (not Yahoo! Mail Plus), entered
the required configuration info into Eudora, and presto. Maybe there
was a window of opportunity during which ordinary account holders were
able to take advantage of POP ???

Anyway, here are the instructions:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/mailplus/pop/pop-35.html

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 01 Jan 2008 18:57:45 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>I have a "secret" real pop3 account which I pay $15/year for and
>which hardly /ever/ got any junk mail until the recent wave
>began about 10 months ago (or something).

I have a free POP account with Yahoo. I didn't do anything sneaky, I
just signed up for a standard account (not Yahoo! Mail Plus), entered
the required configuration info into Eudora, and presto. Maybe there
was a window of opportunity during which ordinary account holders were
able to take advantage of POP ???

Anyway, here are the instructions:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/mailplus/pop/pop-35.html

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 01 Jan 2008 18:57:45 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>I have a "secret" real pop3 account which I pay $15/year for and
>which hardly /ever/ got any junk mail until the recent wave
>began about 10 months ago (or something).

I have a free POP account with Yahoo. I didn't do anything sneaky, I
just signed up for a standard account (not Yahoo! Mail Plus), entered
the required configuration info into Eudora, and presto. Maybe there
was a window of opportunity during which ordinary account holders were
able to take advantage of POP ???

Anyway, here are the instructions:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/mailplus/pop/pop-35.html

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[thanatoid]

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
news:dehln35002cr9m43o3q5qj14hlk2jbs4nd@4ax.com:

> On 01 Jan 2008 18:57:45 GMT, thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put finger to keyboard and
> composed:
>
>>I have a "secret" real pop3 account which I pay $15/year
>>for and which hardly /ever/ got any junk mail until the
>>recent wave began about 10 months ago (or something).
>
> I have a free POP account with Yahoo. I didn't do anything
> sneaky, I just signed up for a standard account (not Yahoo!
> Mail Plus), entered the required configuration info into
> Eudora, and presto. Maybe there was a window of opportunity
> during which ordinary account holders were able to take
> advantage of POP ???
>
> Anyway, here are the instructions:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/original/mailplus/pop/
> pop-35.html
>
> - Franc Zabkar

Thanks, but $15 is more than worth it. Besides, ever since Yahoo
decided to act as an agent of the Chinese gov't, I would not
consider it ethical to get anywhere near them.

--
Needless to say, I disdain such idiocies as Xmas and New Year's,
but I'd thought I'd play along just once...

thanatoid's New Year's Resolutions.

01. Stop posting good advice to help newsgroups.
02. Stop posting stupid advice to help newsgroups.
03. Drive to see the Grand Canyon and then to Las Vegas, buy a
gun.
04. Gamble a little in a desperate attempt to fit in for once.
05. Hire 5 of the best looking Las Vegas hookers and have a 3
hour orgy.
06. Have a king-size eggs and bacon and hashbrowns with onions
breakfast.
07. Return to hotel room, put gun in mouth and pull trigger.

 

[thanatoid]

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in
news:uudq9RLTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second
> Edition http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231793

Thanks, Glen.

I checked it out. Mercifully, it was a very small page,
especially by MS standards.

"This issue can occur if the verification table that SFC uses is
not current".

What do they mean? It was done when I installed 98SE and NOTHING
has changed, so HOW can it NOT be current? Does it have a time-
expiration bug or something?

It's sort of a rhetorical question, but if you DO have an
explanation, feel free to post if so inclined.

Thanks again.



--
Needless to say, I disdain such idiocies as Xmas and New Year's,
but I'd thought I'd play along just once...

thanatoid's New Year's Resolutions.

01. Stop posting good advice to help newsgroups.
02. Stop posting stupid advice to help newsgroups.
03. Drive to see the Grand Canyon and then to Las Vegas, buy a
gun.
04. Gamble a little in a desperate attempt to fit in for once.
05. Hire 5 of the best looking Las Vegas hookers and have a 3
hour orgy.
06. Have a king-size eggs and bacon and hashbrowns with onions
breakfast.
07. Return to hotel room, put gun in mouth and pull trigger.

 

[thanatoid]

"SANTANDER" <santander@microsoft.news> wrote in
news:uS4vsaMTIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc
>>
>> SANTANDER wrote:
>> > how to check windows system files integrity? (to be sure
>> > no files has
> been
>> > replaced or corrupted, after spyware screensaver
>> > removing).
>> >
>> > thanks.
> ------
> I tried run SFC, it show that plenty of files has been
> changed(replaced), but this due various upgrades, usually
> for newer file version. I canceled SFC after short time
> without waiting it finished, since it is not possible to
> verify each file individually, due too many files has been
> changed, so it constantly prompt for action, I always
> clicked 'Ignore'. (In 'Settings' I've selected check for
> changed and deleted files, both options, and 'Prompt for
> backup'). Just noticed for some changed files which SFC has
> found, that it has been changed but not for newer version,
> but for older. I'm not sure why this. for example:
>
> 'hh.exe' previous version - 4.73.8412
> 'hh.exe' current version - 4.72.7286 - older
> pidgen.dll, icwscrpt.exe, fixmapi.exe - replaced with the
> same version, but curent vers. is smaller size.
>
> and so on...

This a perfect example of one of many advantages of two-pane
file managers.

Total Commander which I use (also contains the "compare by
content" feature which I mentioned earlier) allows me to put the
win\sys (or whatever) dir in one pane and the directory in which
all virgin extracted 98SE files are in the second, and with
Shift-F2 it tells me if any are different, and with another
shortcut or mouse click I can move all the "different" ones into
another real or virtual location. Then I can run the "compare by
content" on them.

AFA the newer files being smaller, I have noticed that (in a
peculiar reversal of their usual "we live by bloat" motto), the
newer versions of basic MS system files are often smaller.
Sometimes they have a diff. ver. # but are identical. Sometimes,
they /are/ larger.


--
Needless to say, I disdain such idiocies as Xmas and New Year's,
but I'd thought I'd play along just once...

thanatoid's New Year's Resolutions.

01. Stop posting good advice to help newsgroups.
02. Stop posting stupid advice to help newsgroups.
03. Drive to see the Grand Canyon and then to Las Vegas, buy a
gun.
04. Gamble a little in a desperate attempt to fit in for once.
05. Hire 5 of the best looking Las Vegas hookers and have a 3
hour orgy.
06. Have a king-size eggs and bacon and hashbrowns with onions
breakfast.
07. Return to hotel room, put gun in mouth and pull trigger.

 

[PCR]

SANTANDER wrote:
| "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:e4fpUwBTIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> Run SFC at the prompt: Start, Run, sfc
|>
|> SANTANDER wrote:
|> > how to check windows system files integrity? (to be sure no files
|> > has been replaced or corrupted, after spyware screensaver
|> > removing).
|> >
|> > thanks.
| ------
| I tried run SFC, it show that plenty of files has been
| changed(replaced), but this due various upgrades, usually for newer
| file version.

To be fairly sure SFC will show only the changes you are interested in,
you'd have to run it immediately before the uninstall is done to prime
it. Accept all the changes & have it update its tables. Then, do the
uninstall & run SFC again-- immediately! The new set of changes is just
what the uninstall did. Here is what I usually post for it...

"START button, Run, SFC"

However, this tool needs a priming, which basically means to accept all
current changes. Its Settings, especially Search Criteria, may need
adjusting. You may look through its log, C:\Windows\SFCLOG.TXT, to see
what it's done. Also, there is a certain amount of confusion involved
with it, under the best of circumstances. For one thing, certain files
(like DrWatson.vxd, if you have it in the system tray) will always seem
to have changed. For another, it does not well handle version numbers
greater than 11 characters. Here are some articles...

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=185836 System File Checker
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=188186 SFC baseline
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=192832 SFC extracts wrong file
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=180465 Error Message: The File
Was Not Found. Verify That You Have Selected the
Correct 'Restore from' Location and Try Again
http://www.rickrogers.org/sfc.htm SFC use & problems
http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/using_sfc.html SFC use & problems

| I canceled SFC after short time without waiting it finished, since it
| is not possible to verify each file individually, due too many files
| has been changed, so it constantly prompt for action, I always
| clicked 'Ignore'.

Run it again & accept all changes-- or it never will do you any good!
You'll always wonder which changes are new & which are old otherwise!

| (In 'Settings' I've selected check for changed and
| deleted files, both options, and 'Prompt for backup').
| Just noticed for some changed files which SFC has found, that it has
| been changed but not for newer version, but for older. I'm not sure
| why this. for example:
|
| 'hh.exe' previous version - 4.73.8412
| 'hh.exe' current version - 4.72.7286 - older

Somewhere along the line that's what happened-- the newer one was
replaced with the older. You must run SFC before & after each install &
uninstall to know which did what. My own hh.exe shows up in at least 10
SFC reports. Here is the last mention...

[E:\OPTIONS\CABS]
HH.EXE Updated 5.2.3644.0 6/10/02 5.2.3790.30 4/13/05
No

And the actual current version of that file I have is...
5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540).
SO... SFC isn't great with that one! The version number is too big!

REALLY, you need something like...
http://www.pcmag.com/ 's InCtrl5 by Neil J. Rubenking. Besides showing
what files are changed during an in/un-install, it will say what
Registry keys have changed. It even can say what lines have changed
inside certain .txt & .ini files.

One also needs to do periodic full system backups. Even SFC doesn't save
files. It is only updating some kind of signature of the files. You
can't go back to an intermediate version of a file. You can only go back
to the original that is in the Windows .cab's. For instance, this is all
I've got for HH.exe...

Cabinet WIN98_45.CAB
04-23-1999 10:22:00p A--- 36,864 hh.exe

That goes way back!

| pidgen.dll, icwscrpt.exe, fixmapi.exe - replaced with the same
| version, but curent vers. is smaller size.
|
| and so on...

--
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

 

[glee]

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A18B3580161Athanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in
> news:uudq9RLTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>> Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second
>> Edition http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231793
>
> Thanks, Glen.
>
> I checked it out. Mercifully, it was a very small page,
> especially by MS standards.
>
> "This issue can occur if the verification table that SFC uses is
> not current".
>
> What do they mean? It was done when I installed 98SE and NOTHING
> has changed, so HOW can it NOT be current? Does it have a time-
> expiration bug or something?
>
> It's sort of a rhetorical question, but if you DO have an
> explanation, feel free to post if so inclined.
>
> Thanks again.

Well, I don't have *the* answer, but I have *an* answer. Simply put, SFC has some
bugs in its verification system, as well as in its file extraction process. I think
in the case of this file, even though the file is the same version as when Windows
was installed, it either doen't seem to register this fact in the verification table
or the program itself doen't read it correctly.

The verification process in SFC was so buggy, MS had already retired that function
by the time it was reworked in Windows ME. The only good use of SFC is the file
extraction function.

System File Checker explained:
http://www.rickrogers.org/sfc.htm

How to Extract Original Compressed Windows Files
http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=129605

Description of the System File Checker Tool (Sfc.exe):
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=185836

System File Checker Tool Extracts Incorrect File Versions
http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=192832

Error Message: System File Checker Identified that the Following File may Be
Corrupted. File: EXTRAC32.EXE...:
http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=264865

System File Checker May Not Replace Older Files:
http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=182725
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Bill in Co.]

glee wrote:
> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A18B3580161Athanexit@66.250.146.158...
>> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:uudq9RLTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Corrupted Setupx.dll After Installing Windows 98 Second
>>> Edition http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231793
>>
>> Thanks, Glen.
>>
>> I checked it out. Mercifully, it was a very small page,
>> especially by MS standards.
>>
>> "This issue can occur if the verification table that SFC uses is
>> not current".
>>
>> What do they mean? It was done when I installed 98SE and NOTHING
>> has changed, so HOW can it NOT be current? Does it have a time-
>> expiration bug or something?
>>
>> It's sort of a rhetorical question, but if you DO have an
>> explanation, feel free to post if so inclined.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>
> Well, I don't have *the* answer, but I have *an* answer. Simply put, SFC
has
> some bugs in its verification system, as well as in its file extraction
> process. I think in the case of this file, even though the file is the
same
> version as when Windows was installed, it either doen't seem to register
this
> fact in the verification table or the program itself doen't read it
correctly.
>
> The verification process in SFC was so buggy, MS had already retired that
> function by the time it was reworked in Windows ME. The only good use of
SFC
> is the file extraction function.

Not quite. It's still VERY useful to me to run it just after installing
some new programs to see if they have modified any system files (which quite
often happens, and sometimes with bad or untold consequences). It has
(on occasion) saved me a LOT of grief in that regard (sometimes I have had
to bring back the original files I had copies of, from a backup drive).