On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:05:19 -0400, "R. McCarty"
<PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>SFC can't really do damage. It's over rated as a diagnostic utility.
>Windows File Protection monitors & replaces any of the system
>content that gets replaced automatically. SFC is handy for rebuilding
>the DllCache folder. But unless the user has dismissed a warning
>about a system file being replaced and opted to not allow a restore
>then SFC isn't going to find much to fix.

After reading up on Windows File Protection it sounds like I'm pretty
well covered so I have no need for SFC. Win98 had no automatic
protection like that so I occasionally had to do system file restores
from my backup of the Win folder. Newer freeware/shareware appears
to be better written in this context when compared to the '90's.

Thanks to all for the info.

BoB


>"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:YfXFj.1772$Ew5.1106@trnddc04...
>> PD43 wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 2:43 pm, BoB <m...@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I am experiencing no problems, it was not time well spent for me.
>>>
>>> Which begs the question: since you were not experiencing problems WHY
>>> did you run it?
>>>
>>> Your choice to run it was to blame for your time not being well spent.
>> So are you saying that sfc can do damage?
>> I'm asking innocently. I've been reading the F1 help on sfc and as usual,
>> Microsoft makes it a bit unclear as to why to run this. Is see it
>> "fixes" dll's. But again, is there harm in running it without errors.
>> Would there be a "display only" mode?
>>
>> I'm still browsing other links in this thread, so they may add fuel to the
>> fire.
>>
>