R. McCarty said:
Windows File Protection maintains the versions on the machine
automatically. SFC is a component of that process that keeps the
DllCache folder properly populated.
Normally, XP should never have a missing or wrong version if
WPA is doing it's job. You can tell WFP to ignore an out-of-ver
module and a entry will be stored in the System Event Log
indicating as much.
SCF /Scannow is O.K., for verification and repopulating the
Cache folder, but XP takes care of module overwrites on it's own,
automatically.
Thankyou for taking the trouble to reply. Upon further investigation I have
come up with some info, I'm not quite sure what it means yet
but here is the problem.....
When I run Norton here is what comes up.
Message:
Problem
Missing File: "C:\Program Files\Common Files\InstallShield\Professional\Run
Time\0700\Intel32\DotNetInstaller.exe" cannot access a necessary file,
"mscoree.dll".
More Information
You received this error message after running a diagnostic scan using
antivirus software, such as Norton AntiVirus or Norton WinDoctor. Some
diagnostic software recognizes DotNetInstaller.exe as a .NET application
that depends on the .NET Framework and reports it. DotNetInstaller.exe is a
..NET application that is used when an installation is installing .NET
assemblies. InstallShield installs DotNetInstaller.exe as part of its engine
files. DotNetInstaller.exe does not work on systems that do not have the
..NET Framework, but the file is cached with the InstallShield engine files
just in case it is needed in the future when the .NET Framework is
installed. It is technically correct, but InstallShield always checks for
the Framework before trying to use it. You can safely ignore this message.
Fix
This message can be safely ignored. However, if you do not want the message
to appear, you must download and install the .NET Framework. As a
forewarning, the .NET Framework is fairly large, approximately 20 MB.
This info I found from googling the problem.
Basically am I right in thinking that this file was not there in the first
place, but then why was it not spotted in the initial scans with norton?
That does not make sense it is as if something has happened to make it
suddenly start returning a negative.