Scenario:
1 -- Ran Bootviz on my XPSP2 machine; didn't work; said it couldn't
find the .BIN file that should have been generated.
2 -- Started getting warnings that I had no more room on C:
3 -- TreeSize utility led me to a newly created trace-log file under
System32\Log files\WMI. It was TWO GB in size. The file by the same
name that it replaced had been a mere 20 Kb.
4 -- Couldn't delete the 2Gb file 'cause it was "in use." I couldn't
see an active app or process that might be using it.
5 -- Tried to Restart, but nothing happened after POST. I got no
error message, just a blinking cursor
6 -- Because my XP C: drive is FAT32, I booted from a WinME-DOS boot
floppy. I could get a C: prompt, but the DIR command returned the old
Abort-Retry-Fail message as though the drive had no file structure to
read.
7 -- Booted to Linux on another partition. The Linux file manager
could see the C drive but showed only one directory on it other than
System Volume Information, and it was not the Windows directory. It
was obvious that a catastrophic failure had occurred.
8 -- Used Acronis True Image 8 to restore the drive from yesterday's
backup, and all's well (there was no data stored on the C: drive).

Questions:
1 -- Didn't Bootviz kill my computer?
2 -- If so, how would creating a file that took up all the space on
the drive render it unbootable and mostly destroy its file structure?

Ron

Ron

Although bootvis is no longer offered by Microsoft for download, and that it
caused problems because people would turn ON logging (and subsequently
forget to turn it back off - causing tremendous loss of drive space), I have
not heard of any problem similar to what you have experienced.

I believe you have/had multiple problems, one of which caused your folder
problems.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Ron Miller" <miller.90@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:e5qgl1d6u3qrjghmkals1p833ui6shp2it@4ax.com...
> Scenario:
> 1 -- Ran Bootviz on my XPSP2 machine; didn't work; said it couldn't
> find the .BIN file that should have been generated.
> 2 -- Started getting warnings that I had no more room on C:
> 3 -- TreeSize utility led me to a newly created trace-log file under
> System32\Log files\WMI. It was TWO GB in size. The file by the same
> name that it replaced had been a mere 20 Kb.
> 4 -- Couldn't delete the 2Gb file 'cause it was "in use." I couldn't
> see an active app or process that might be using it.
> 5 -- Tried to Restart, but nothing happened after POST. I got no
> error message, just a blinking cursor
> 6 -- Because my XP C: drive is FAT32, I booted from a WinME-DOS boot
> floppy. I could get a C: prompt, but the DIR command returned the old
> Abort-Retry-Fail message as though the drive had no file structure to
> read.
> 7 -- Booted to Linux on another partition. The Linux file manager
> could see the C drive but showed only one directory on it other than
> System Volume Information, and it was not the Windows directory. It
> was obvious that a catastrophic failure had occurred.
> 8 -- Used Acronis True Image 8 to restore the drive from yesterday's
> backup, and all's well (there was no data stored on the C: drive).
>
> Questions:
> 1 -- Didn't Bootviz kill my computer?
> 2 -- If so, how would creating a file that took up all the space on
> the drive render it unbootable and mostly destroy its file structure?
>
> Ron
>
> Ron

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:34:04 -0400, "Richard Urban"
<richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Although bootvis is no longer offered by Microsoft for download, and that it
>caused problems because people would turn ON logging (and subsequently
>forget to turn it back off - causing tremendous loss of drive space), I have
>not heard of any problem similar to what you have experienced.
>
>I believe you have/had multiple problems, one of which caused your folder
>problems.

Thanks for the info. When enabling logging in Bootvis, you are
allowed to specify in the GUI how many "repetitions" you want to log.
I chose "1," so it shouldn't have been necessary to turn logging off,
should it? Even if more boots were logged, I don't see how in the
world the log file would have reached TWO Gb in size in just the three
boots I had between running bootvis and the destruction of my FAT.

I doubt that anything else occurred because I don't install programs
on my C: drive, and I performed no Updates from Microsoft in the short
interval between running Bootvis and the crash. Do you have any ideas
about what else might have happened?


Ron

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:06:40 GMT, milleron
<millerDOT90@SPAMLESSosu.edu> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:34:04 -0400, "Richard Urban"
><richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Although bootvis is no longer offered by Microsoft for download, and that it
>>caused problems because people would turn ON logging (and subsequently
>>forget to turn it back off - causing tremendous loss of drive space), I have
>>not heard of any problem similar to what you have experienced.
>>
>>I believe you have/had multiple problems, one of which caused your folder
>>problems.
>
>Thanks for the info. When enabling logging in Bootvis, you are
>allowed to specify in the GUI how many "repetitions" you want to log.
>I chose "1," so it shouldn't have been necessary to turn logging off,
>should it? Even if more boots were logged, I don't see how in the
>world the log file would have reached TWO Gb in size in just the three
>boots I had between running bootvis and the destruction of my FAT.
>
>I doubt that anything else occurred because I don't install programs
>on my C: drive, and I performed no Updates from Microsoft in the short
>interval between running Bootvis and the crash. Do you have any ideas
>about what else might have happened?
>
>
>Ron

PS: There was one other thing I did. Aware that BootVis cannot
actually perform optimization itself, before one of the reboots, I
typed "Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks" in the Start/Run
box. This command is supposed to trigger the actual optimization
process.

Ron

Ron Miller wrote:
>
> 1 -- Ran Bootviz on my XPSP2 machine; didn't work; said it couldn't

Please state in detail why you decided to run bootvis on a home pc when
its NOT designed for that.


http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx





--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

On 21 Oct 2005 13:04:06 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

>Ron Miller wrote:
>>
>> 1 -- Ran Bootviz on my XPSP2 machine; didn't work; said it couldn't
>
>Please state in detail why you decided to run bootvis on a home pc when
>its NOT designed for that.
>
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx

Wow, I love a good inquisition. Do you wear the black hood and spiked
leather collar while you're online?

It's very reasonable to supply extra pertinent information in the
course of a thread. Please state in detail how your request will help
you in answering my questions.

Anyway, Bootvis has been recommended for home PC use by any number of
authorities for years, Fred Langa being the latest that I've run
across but by no means the only one.

I ran it because I'm experiencing long boot times. D'oh.

Ron

milleron wrote:
>
> Anyway, Bootvis has been recommended for home PC use by any number of
> authorities for years, Fred Langa being the latest that I've run
> across but by no means the only one.

Keep in mind that Mr. Langa has never had a job fixing pcs or being
responsible for maintaining a group of pcs like an IT guy in a
corporation. If he had actual, hands on experience with pc repair and
had actual experience being responsible for keeping pcs running he'd
NEVER recommend bootvis for a home user.

Note that Mr. Langa is, and has been, an excellent editor and writer
however.

On 22 Oct 2005 16:52:05 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

>milleron wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, Bootvis has been recommended for home PC use by any number of
>> authorities for years, Fred Langa being the latest that I've run
>> across but by no means the only one.
>
>Keep in mind that Mr. Langa has never had a job fixing pcs or being
>responsible for maintaining a group of pcs like an IT guy in a
>corporation. If he had actual, hands on experience with pc repair and
>had actual experience being responsible for keeping pcs running he'd
>NEVER recommend bootvis for a home user.

You're trying to say that Fred Langa has had no "actual experience
being responsible for keeping PCs running ???"

You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.
I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that this program has been
widely and repeatedly recommended for the "home user," perhaps because
it supposedly doesn't even do anything to the computer. In spite of
my original statement, it allegedly does NOT optimize anything, change
any Registry entries, or alter any settings. It's supposed to do
nothing but give a representation of where boot delays could be
occurring. Can you please elaborate on why all the authors are wrong
about recommending Bootvis to the home user?
>
>Note that Mr. Langa is, and has been, an excellent editor and writer
>however.
>

Ron

Bootvis was pulled partially, I believe, because it caused so many problems
for those who didn't understand it's purpose in life. If it were safe to
use, it would still be available from Microsoft.

Just my opinion!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"milleron" <millerDOT90@SPAMLESSosu.edu> wrote in message
news:v6hnl1tnsg1d1f8d54g5vfleet5tl1rsjb@4ax.com...
> On 22 Oct 2005 16:52:05 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:
>
>>milleron wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, Bootvis has been recommended for home PC use by any number of
>>> authorities for years, Fred Langa being the latest that I've run
>>> across but by no means the only one.
>>
>>Keep in mind that Mr. Langa has never had a job fixing pcs or being
>>responsible for maintaining a group of pcs like an IT guy in a
>>corporation. If he had actual, hands on experience with pc repair and
>>had actual experience being responsible for keeping pcs running he'd
>>NEVER recommend bootvis for a home user.
>
> You're trying to say that Fred Langa has had no "actual experience
> being responsible for keeping PCs running ???"
>
> You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
> across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.
> I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that this program has been
> widely and repeatedly recommended for the "home user," perhaps because
> it supposedly doesn't even do anything to the computer. In spite of
> my original statement, it allegedly does NOT optimize anything, change
> any Registry entries, or alter any settings. It's supposed to do
> nothing but give a representation of where boot delays could be
> occurring. Can you please elaborate on why all the authors are wrong
> about recommending Bootvis to the home user?
>>
>>Note that Mr. Langa is, and has been, an excellent editor and writer
>>however.
>>
>
> Ron

milleron wrote:
>
> You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
> across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.

Actually, the first one to say that was Microsoft. Read the docs and see
for yourself.

On 24 Oct 2005 12:34:09 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

>milleron wrote:
>>
>> You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
>> across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.
>
>Actually, the first one to say that was Microsoft. Read the docs and see
>for yourself.

Well, yes. I followed the MS link you originally posted, but why do
you think that so many authorities still recommend it -- i.e., what
problems can it cause? That's never been explained at all by the MS
documents, has it?



Ron

milleron wrote:
>
> >> You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
> >> across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.
> >
> >Actually, the first one to say that was Microsoft. Read the docs and see
> >for yourself.
>
> Well, yes. I followed the MS link you originally posted, but why do
> you think that so many authorities still recommend it -- i.e., what
> problems can it cause? That's never been explained at all by the MS
> documents, has it?

Please define an Authority.

Is it:

1. A person who actually fixes and repairs busted PCs for a living? or

2. Is it a person who just writes about fixing PCs?

On 25 Oct 2005 23:04:01 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

>milleron wrote:
>>
>> >> You've piqued my interest because you're the only person I've ever run
>> >> across who says that Bootvis should not be used by individual owners.
>> >
>> >Actually, the first one to say that was Microsoft. Read the docs and see
>> >for yourself.
>>
>> Well, yes. I followed the MS link you originally posted, but why do
>> you think that so many authorities still recommend it -- i.e., what
>> problems can it cause? That's never been explained at all by the MS
>> documents, has it?
>
>Please define an Authority.
>
>Is it:
>
>1. A person who actually fixes and repairs busted PCs for a living? or
>
>2. Is it a person who just writes about fixing PCs?
>

Oh, give me a %#^*in break. How can it possibly matter what an
"authority" is? Regardless of the definition of an authority, if
you're saying not to use it, surely you can state why -- i.e., what
the danger is. If you have no idea, please just say so.


Ron