I've been under the impression that WinME automatically runs it's own SFC, that's why it's not necessary/smart to run it the same way as in Win98. I've even read in this forum that SFC is a waste of time! Anyway, I had this Compaq Presario which had a lot of problems - would only run in SAFE made, etc. So I loaded and ran SFC and it found six corrupted files. Now everything runs great. My question is: Is SFC a good/needed program to install and run in WinME or not?

That's "SAFE Mode"!

Completely unnecessary, as WinME uses SFP (System File Protection) which operates without the need for user intervention. As well, the file extraction feature of SFC is performed via WinME msconfig

I have difficulty understanding the fascination some ME users have with that somewhat flawed utility, but feel free to experiment. Very likely your issue could have been resolved without it (assuming that actually was the case)

I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

jboy - I don't question the utility of SFP. In my case however the point remains: my system wouldn't start normally, presumably WITH SFP running. I manually installed SFC while in SAFE mode and six corrupted files were found, which I restored. Why didn't SFP protect, detect, and restore these files? I'm sure a highly skilled computer tekkie could have found the bad files using other means. SFC did that same job for me, so all's well that ends well:=)

Well, it 'should' have worked that way, but it's difficult to be certain that your explanation of events is in fact the actual reason - - as you say 'presumably' (but not definitely)

SFC is a flawed program, and (as noted in that linked thread) there are files that it restores 'incorrectly'
It might be interesting if you could list the files that were deemed to be corrupt

"My question is: Is SFC a good/needed program to install and run in WinME or not?"

To answer your *original* question: No, there's no verifiable reason to make use of that applet in WinME, your account notwithstanding. While your issue seemed to be resolved from this unorthodox method, that is far from a certainty. In order to perform its function, SFC compares files to an updatable 'baseline' database (default.sfc) - - it does not determine corruption merely by scanning the file. I have to wonder how useful the 'default.sfc' from Win98 would be within WinME - - if it was updated immediately, then the only corrupt files that might be found would have to have occurred after that initial scan - any 'corrupt' files in existence before that would be deemed 'ok' and recorded as the standard in the baseline

"Why didn't SFP protect, detect, and restore these files?"

That is another question entirely ; )

The short answer - - I don't know
It's difficult to perform a post mortem without knowing the exact circumstances. It can be appealing to believe a solution has been found, but things are not always as they seem, and coincidences can lead to leaps of logic

I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter.

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Thanx for all the good info. Unfortunately I can't recover the "corrupted" files but I will attempt a more thorough report when I try this on my next old computer, for what it's worth!

Yeah, it's difficult for me to see how SFC could have been helpful in any way - - I'm open to new possibilities, but can't help but entertain a large degree of skepticism

From the link:

All of the changes to the baseline are noted in the Sfclog.txt

... so perhaps there might be an indication there, if that file can be found

I also wonder what might have prompted you to go down that road in the first place - it's certainly not an intuitive or simple step.

Despite claims to the contrary, posts are not routinely removed from Computing.Net