On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:51:22 -0600, "Calab" <myspam@csd.ca> wrote:

>
>"BoB" <me@box.invalid> wrote in message
>news:jvtiu3d56d6v1fvi827h66ggk67n4bfp60@4ax.com.. .
>| 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.
>
>I can say that SFC has repaired WinXP machines before.
>
>Just last month my wife could play any of the games included with XP, as
>well as having some other general issues.
>
>Ran SFC and the machine is 100% normal again.

I didn't mean to imply that SFC is not effective. It can't fix something
if nothing is wrong. In Win98, SFC fixed occasional problems fine.

BoB