Sfc and sfc /scannow?

[Bill in Co.]

Has anyone been able to find a way to run SFC and actually get a LOG, to
examine what has changed, and give YOU a choice as to what and what not to
replace (as it could in Win98SE)?

It seems that with WinXP, if you run SFC (or sfc /scannow), it blindly does
its thing, and tells you nothing about what it replaced, nor does it give
you a choice. This is a bit annoying, to say the least.

 

[MAP]

What was replaced will be listed in the event viewer,between the two msg. sfc
starting and sfc ending.As far as having the choice of replacing each item, I
don't think so.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Well, this isn't very good news. There should be some way to run SFC and
check it (in a log file) before it does its thing, just as there was in
Win9x.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I don't think sfc is a transactional process.

Well, this isn't very good news. There should be some way to run SFC
and check it (in a log file) before it does its thing, just as there was
in Win9x.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Why not? It should be, and it used to be.
I mean, in Win9x, one could run SFC and see what had changed in the log
file, without replacing anything - if one chose to. And it was optional
whether or not to replace the files on an individual basis (i.e., at each
prompt). Not having this capability seems "a bit" limited.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

By transactional, I mean that the software builds a transaction file (but
doesn't make the changes yet) and then gives you the opportunity to cancel
or commit to the changes on the second pass.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Well, ok, that's not exactly what happened in Win9x, but close enough.

But it seems to be a serious omission NOT to have either that, or what I was
getting at.

This all or nothing "behind the scenes" replacement thing sucks.

I assume the reason it was done this way (in WinXP) was the good ole, "MS
knows best", and "We'll take care of it for you". Which is ... pretty
annoying.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

But it seems to be a serious omission NOT to have either that, or what I was
getting at.

If it were THAT serious and omission - and if enough folks were
clamoring for it - I'd have thought that MS would have added it in the
six+ years since XP was first released.

The point is moot and not worth fretting over.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Considering what the system file checker does, on what basis would you make
decisions about what to allow it to replace and what not to? If you knew
what files were problematical already why wouldn't you address them directly
in the first place? For a checker that does give you more flexibility try
the driver verifier utility.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

For a checker that does give you more flexibility try
the driver verifier utility.

whazzat?

 

[sharonf]

What was replaced will be listed in the event viewer,between the two msg. sfc
starting and sfc ending.As far as having the choice of replacing each item, I
don't think so.

Where exactly can I find those files? I too, would like to know what.
if anything was replaced.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Where exactly can I find those files? I too, would like to know what.
if anything was replaced.

WHY?

 

[Gord Dibben]

Where exactly can I find those files? I too, would like to know what.

if anything was replaced.

Start>Run eventvwr.msc

Have a look under "System"


Gord

 

[Bill in Co.]

WHY?

Forget it, Grumpy. You don't care to know.

 

[Bill in Co.]

If it were THAT serious and omission - and if enough folks were
clamoring for it - I'd have thought that MS would have added it in the
six+ years since XP was first released.

The point is moot and not worth fretting over.

According to Grumpy.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Forget it, Grumpy. You don't care to know.

You're right. Because it makes absolutely NO difference if you knew
the files that were restored or not.

If you and others like you had such a list, you would then be asking
"Why did fileX get lost from my system and need restoring using SFC?"

XP is a mature OS and has already been replaced.

Stop trying to reinvent the XP wheel and move on.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Considering what the system file checker does, on what basis would you
make
decisions about what to allow it to replace and what not to? If you knew
what files were problematical already why wouldn't you address them
directly
in the first place? For a checker that does give you more flexibility try
the driver verifier utility.

It's not just a question of driver verification - by no means.

After I have installed some programs, sometimes they replaced some system
DLL files with different DLL versions, no questions asked.

One simple example I just now remember was a specific version of a Lame DLL
file that is used by other programs (so it made a difference for the other
programs).

And then there was the case where, after uninstalling a program, it removed
some DLLs that were needed by some other programs (on top of which it may
have replaced some of them with its own version).

And there were other cases, too. I guess I summarize by saying this: if
you haven't walked this walk, maybe it makes little sense to you, but, trust
me, I've "been there", done that", and have been burned on more than one
occasion. Or rather, I should say, I *would* have been burned in some
other cases if I had NOT meticulously checked the SFC log *before* and
*after* installing the program (and perhaps later removing the program).

Now this was back on my Win98SE computer, but it can equally well apply for
any operating system.

 

[Bill in Co.]

You're right. Because it makes absolutely NO difference if you knew
the files that were restored or not.

If you and others like you had such a list, you would then be asking
"Why did fileX get lost from my system and need restoring using SFC?"

XP is a mature OS and has already been replaced.

Stop trying to reinvent the XP wheel and move on.

I already explained it in my post to Colin. Forget it, it's over your pay
grade.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Now this was back on my Win98SE computer, but it can equally well apply for
any operating system.

Sez who?

You seem to be still living in the past. Get rid of it.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Sez who?

You seem to be still living in the past. Get rid of it.

And you seem to be living in a vacuum. Get on board, if and when the
spirit moves you. Or not.