Defrag error

When I use Defrag (as my computer is running so slow...)
I got a message
An error has occured :
Exception 0 X 0000005 occurred at 0 X 39f3dea(info= O X
3b84ebc) in the protocol c line = 1297

and again :
Excep.........at 0 X 39a0a1c (info = 0 X 3b84cd4).......

And........at 0 X 3b856ea....

etc etc... What does this mean?

Can anyone help me with this?
What should I do???

Many thanks!

A couple of things. Did you disable your anti virus' auto file scan before
running the defrag? Did you run a scan disk first? Did you try running scan
disk and defrag in safe mode?

Alias

"Mich.L" wrote

When I use Defrag (as my computer is running so slow...)
I got a message
An error has occured :
Exception 0 X 0000005 occurred at 0 X 39f3dea(info= O X
3b84ebc) in the protocol c line = 1297

and again :
Excep.........at 0 X 39a0a1c (info = 0 X 3b84cd4).......

And........at 0 X 3b856ea....

etc etc... What does this mean?

Can anyone help me with this?
What should I do???

Many thanks!

Yes I did disable the anti virus auto file check, Yes I
did run Scandik first - but it took for ever!
And No - I did not run defrag in safe mode.
Perhaps I'll try this - Hey?
Thanks!

-----Original Message-----
A couple of things. Did you disable your anti virus' auto
file scan before
running the defrag? Did you run a scan disk first? Did
you try running scan
disk and defrag in safe mode?

Alias

"Mich.L" wrote

When I use Defrag (as my computer is running so slow...)
I got a message
An error has occured :
Exception 0 X 0000005 occurred at 0 X 39f3dea(info= O X
3b84ebc) in the protocol c line = 1297

and again :
Excep.........at 0 X 39a0a1c (info = 0 X
3b84cd4).......

And........at 0 X 3b856ea....

etc etc... What does this mean?

Can anyone help me with this?
What should I do???

Many thanks!


.

"Mich.L" wrote

Yes I did disable the anti virus auto file check, Yes I
did run Scandik first - but it took for ever!
And No - I did not run defrag in safe mode.
Perhaps I'll try this - Hey?
Thanks!

If it took forever, something is running in the background and running it in
Safe Mode should cure that.

Have you run the usual bestie removal programs like AdAware and Spybot,
Search and Destroy?

Alias

-----Original Message-----
A couple of things. Did you disable your anti virus' auto
file scan before
running the defrag? Did you run a scan disk first? Did
you try running scan
disk and defrag in safe mode?

Alias

"Mich.L" wrote

When I use Defrag (as my computer is running so slow...)
I got a message
An error has occured :
Exception 0 X 0000005 occurred at 0 X 39f3dea(info= O X
3b84ebc) in the protocol c line = 1297

and again :
Excep.........at 0 X 39a0a1c (info = 0 X
3b84cd4).......

And........at 0 X 3b856ea....

etc etc... What does this mean?

Can anyone help me with this?
What should I do???

Many thanks!


.

[Note to regulars: I will soon create a webpage or two or three that
replicates the following (with enhancements, of course, plus some additional
t-shooting, Grystmill style), so I can reduce the load I impose here by
repeating it so often. I know it's long overdue, but that's life, s.) The
below includes significant new material. Review, comments and corrections
requested.]

See my article, "Clean Boot--What it is and why you need it"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%2...GP11.phx.gb l

Because some of the more recent known invaders are capable of interfering
with the suggestions contained in the above, I suggest you also consider
first doing the following, though it may be necessary to set up a clean
boot, and even then manually kill a malicious process or two before you can
even get these accomplished. Many invaders are built to first detect and
disable protections that are in place, so that you might, for instance, have
to obtain and employ a DOS-boot antivirus like F-Prot. Repeated running of
scanners, booting back and forth from Safe Mode to Normal, or into DOS
Mode--a lot of gymnastics are often required to get to an error-free and
nasties-free condition. Once there, however, some user sanity and education,
plus regular "wetware" updating, will *keep* your system healthy.

Update your Antivirus, run a full scan. Then, if you haven't already,
obtain, update, and run any or all of the following
Trojan/Parasite/Adware/Spyware cleaners. I recommend getting and running
*all* of them. They each target slightly different things. Again, be sure
you update the definitions they are using to identify crap before running
them, each time you run them--which, depending on your surfing habits,
should be anything from once a month, to once a week, to once a day, to once
an hour if you're really into junkware sites (aka "Free goodies", game
sites, fun-places-to-be, etc.)

Tradition had it that Firewalls were generally not needed when using simple
dial-up modem connections. Alas, this is no longer the case. *Everyone*
needs a firewall! Also, I make no bones about it--Norton, McAfee and
Trend-Micro products (and probably a few others) are ABOMINATIONS!,
particularly when it comes to Win9x systems. They are massive suites that
intrude into basic functions where they simply do not need to go. For
freeware solutions, I suggest AVG or AVAST (based upon the recommendations
of others, though each has it's minor drawbacks) and ZoneAlarm Firewall. But
for really good, inexpensive, and trustworthy protection, you simply can't
beat eTrust Armor. Antivirus and Firewall combined, very non-intrusive upon
the system itself (I've *never* seen a crash caused by EZ Antivirus, and
there's hardly any impact whatsoever on Resources, etc.) eTrust is from
Computer Associates Inc.--the antivirus is a version of their corporate
product usually known as Inoculan, and they got smart recently and switched
to using a version of ZoneAlarm for their firewall.

You can get a one-year free trial of eTrust EZ Armor at
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/. This offer was initially slated to end
this June, but has been extended through February 2005. The trial offer is
also included in at least some versions (not sure about all languages) of
Microsoft's Windows Security Update CD, an item *everyone* should own.
(However, do *not* just run the Update CD on your system without a proper
analysis of where your system stands with regard to Updates. Might do more
harm than good.) EZ Armor would normally cost $50 for the first year (a deal
in itself), and yearly renewal subscriptions only cost $25--an absolute
steal when compared with other offerings. Order the Windows Security Update
CD directly from MS, totally free, including S&H, at
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/cd/order.asp

In addition to Antivirus and Firewall protection, I consider the following
items to be indispensable protection and clean-up utilities. My judgment is
based upon their being free, good, accurate, and safe, if handled correctly.
See, also, suggestions from MVP Mike Burgess on his site,
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/, particularly the general Windows/IE
Security page, http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/security.htm. More current
discussions of Security issues can be found at the Windows Support Center
(provided by MVP Jim Eshelman, a true Saint!) at http://www.aumha.org

(SpyBot S&D = "SpyBot Search & Destroy")

Ad-Aware http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/
SpyBot S&D http://www.safer-networking.org/index.php?page=download
HijackThis http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/files/HijackThis.exe
CWShredder http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/files/cwshredder.zip
Spyware Blaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

PLEASE! Before doing any of these, see also,
http://www.mvps.org/inetexplorer/Darnit.htm for suggestions and cautionary
information about internet surfing, and some important hints about using the
above. ESPECIALLY, be aware that HijackThis scans result in a LOT of stuff
that you *don't* want to delete. The admonishment to save a log and show it
to an expert is critically good advice. Not following that advice can really
do some damage to your system. SpyBot S&D, too, is capable of similar
problems, especially if you change default scan settings, or "Immunize".

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine is a
HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently updated list of
bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of the junky advertisements
you see in other places, or sites that install spyware/adware, or that, for
whatever reason, you shouldn't allow into your system. Using the HOSTS
file, you can redirect such addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail
to load on most machines--your own computer.
HOSTS Overview -- http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Also handy is MVP George Geyde's HOSTS File Manager. You can find it at the
bottom of this page:
http://www.mvps.org/PracticallyNerded/Software.htm


--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"Mich.L" wrote in message
...
When I use Defrag (as my computer is running so slow...)
I got a message
An error has occured :
Exception 0 X 0000005 occurred at 0 X 39f3dea(info= O X
3b84ebc) in the protocol c line = 1297

and again :
Excep.........at 0 X 39a0a1c (info = 0 X 3b84cd4).......

And........at 0 X 3b856ea....

etc etc... What does this mean?

Can anyone help me with this?
What should I do???

Many thanks!

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
:

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine is
a HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently updated
list of bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of the junky
advertisements you see in other places, or sites that install
spyware/adware, or that, for whatever reason, you shouldn't allow
into your system. Using the HOSTS file, you can redirect such
addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail to load on most
machines--your own computer. HOSTS Overview --
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I'm in agreement on most everything you've said, except this one. I
downloaded his HOSTS file and gave it a whirl. In 98 I didn't really
notice any slowdown in browsing, but for some reason XP must process it
much more slowly, because there's a noticeable slowdown in browsing. But
The MAIN reason I dumped it is because when I found out I couldn't access
certain websites that I maintain for people on a local provider in our
area... namely netINS.net. Their customer websites are under the URL
"showcase.netins.net/web/username", and sure enough, it was listed in
that HOSTS file. Apparently someone got something they didn't like from
one of the sites and "sent it in" and had the whole domain blacklisted.
It shouldn't be that easy to get an otherwise respectable domain
blacklisted.

--
-- What happens if you get scared half to death twice? --

Menno Hershberger wrote in
:

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
:

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine is
a HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently
updated list of bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of the
junky advertisements you see in other places, or sites that install
spyware/adware, or that, for whatever reason, you shouldn't allow
into your system. Using the HOSTS file, you can redirect such
addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail to load on most
machines--your own computer. HOSTS Overview --
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I'm in agreement on most everything you've said, except this one.
I
downloaded his HOSTS file and gave it a whirl. In 98 I didn't really
notice any slowdown in browsing, but for some reason XP must process
it much more slowly, because there's a noticeable slowdown in
browsing. But The MAIN reason I dumped it is because when I found out
I couldn't access certain websites that I maintain for people on a
local provider in our area... namely netINS.net. Their customer
websites are under the URL "showcase.netins.net/web/username", and
sure enough, it was listed in that HOSTS file. Apparently someone got
something they didn't like from one of the sites and "sent it in" and
had the whole domain blacklisted. It shouldn't be that easy to get an
otherwise respectable domain blacklisted.

OK, I'd better take that one back real quick. showcase.netins.net is
NOT on that list. It's on a list I got from
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.html
which is the one I had installed.
But I still really don't like the HOSTS file idea anyway, for the same
reason.

--
-- What happens if you get scared half to death twice? --

The HOSTS link that Gary Terhune gives works great on my 98SE machine. If
it doesn't work well on XP then (oh well!), I guess this is another example
where the 9x code is superior to the NT code. The problem with XP Pro. is
that it is too bloated for everyday needs and does not have true MS-DOS --
just an emulator. I know the NT code is great for many applications but I
plan to continue to dual-boot with 98SE and XP Pro. until something radical
happens where I need just one operating system --- after 30 June 2006 will
disconnect 98SE side from the Internet due to 98SE going into the
unsupported range and having no more critical updates from Microsoft through
their Windows Update Site. Just my opinion and my two cents. : Have a
great day!

"Menno Hershberger" wrote in message
...
Menno Hershberger wrote in
:

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
:

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine is
a HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently
updated list of bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of the
junky advertisements you see in other places, or sites that install
spyware/adware, or that, for whatever reason, you shouldn't allow
into your system. Using the HOSTS file, you can redirect such
addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail to load on most
machines--your own computer. HOSTS Overview --
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I'm in agreement on most everything you've said, except this one.
I
downloaded his HOSTS file and gave it a whirl. In 98 I didn't really
notice any slowdown in browsing, but for some reason XP must process
it much more slowly, because there's a noticeable slowdown in
browsing. But The MAIN reason I dumped it is because when I found out
I couldn't access certain websites that I maintain for people on a
local provider in our area... namely netINS.net. Their customer
websites are under the URL "showcase.netins.net/web/username", and
sure enough, it was listed in that HOSTS file. Apparently someone got
something they didn't like from one of the sites and "sent it in" and
had the whole domain blacklisted. It shouldn't be that easy to get an
otherwise respectable domain blacklisted.

OK, I'd better take that one back real quick. showcase.netins.net is
NOT on that list. It's on a list I got from
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.html
which is the one I had installed.
But I still really don't like the HOSTS file idea anyway, for the same
reason.

--
-- What happens if you get scared half to death twice? --

XP isn't all that bad, once you get used to it.
Hell, I liked DOS better than 3.1, 3.1 better than 95, 95 better than 98,
and like you, 98 better than XP.
And it'll never end... :-)
I still use DOS on occasion.
Right now it's 98 & XP Pro, dual boot. I use DOS from the 98 part.

"ArtWilder" wrote in
:

The HOSTS link that Gary Terhune gives works great on my 98SE machine.
If it doesn't work well on XP then (oh well!), I guess this is
another example where the 9x code is superior to the NT code. The
problem with XP Pro. is that it is too bloated for everyday needs and
does not have true MS-DOS -- just an emulator. I know the NT code is
great for many applications but I plan to continue to dual-boot with
98SE and XP Pro. until something radical happens where I need just one
operating system --- after 30 June 2006 will disconnect 98SE side from
the Internet due to 98SE going into the unsupported range and having
no more critical updates from Microsoft through their Windows Update
Site. Just my opinion and my two cents. : Have a great day!

"Menno Hershberger" wrote in message
...
Menno Hershberger wrote in
:

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
:

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine
is a HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently
updated list of bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of
the junky advertisements you see in other places, or sites that
install spyware/adware, or that, for whatever reason, you
shouldn't allow into your system. Using the HOSTS file, you can
redirect such addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail to
load on most machines--your own computer. HOSTS Overview --
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I'm in agreement on most everything you've said, except this
one. I
downloaded his HOSTS file and gave it a whirl. In 98 I didn't
really notice any slowdown in browsing, but for some reason XP must
process it much more slowly, because there's a noticeable slowdown
in browsing. But The MAIN reason I dumped it is because when I
found out I couldn't access certain websites that I maintain for
people on a local provider in our area... namely netINS.net. Their
customer websites are under the URL
"showcase.netins.net/web/username", and sure enough, it was listed
in that HOSTS file. Apparently someone got something they didn't
like from one of the sites and "sent it in" and had the whole
domain blacklisted. It shouldn't be that easy to get an otherwise
respectable domain blacklisted.

OK, I'd better take that one back real quick. showcase.netins.net
is
NOT on that list. It's on a list I got from
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.html
which is the one I had installed.
But I still really don't like the HOSTS file idea anyway, for the
same
reason.

--

--
-- What happens if you get scared half to death twice? --

I haven't noticed any particular hit on my system (2.1 GHz w/ DSL), but it
may simply be getting lost in the shuffle. Still, *any* hit on reaction
speed, any "lag time" due to processing the HOSTS file, is *more* than made
up by the lack of advertising and the immense reduction in pop-ups generated
by ads loading. (Ad in page loads, then generates its own pop-up.) I don't
use a pop-up stopper and don't need one. I get pop-ups when they are
appropriate, and otherwise I don't (OK, I'll be honest--90 to 95% of the
pop-ups I get are useful ones, performing the functions they were intended
to perform.)

Plus, a large amount of crapware uses these ad vectors to weasel in. It was
the addition of the HOSTS File Manager that immediately whittled my
adware/spyware scanners' returns to near zero during regular maintenance.
(Adding SpywareBlaster has dropped them to absolute zero for all intents and
purposes.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"Menno Hershberger" wrote in message
...
Menno Hershberger wrote in
:

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
:

An additional tool that is very helpful in protecting your machine is
a HOSTS file. Microsoft MVP Mike Burgess maintain a frequently
updated list of bad sites. They may be sites that provide most of the
junky advertisements you see in other places, or sites that install
spyware/adware, or that, for whatever reason, you shouldn't allow
into your system. Using the HOSTS file, you can redirect such
addresses to a site that's guaranteed will fail to load on most
machines--your own computer. HOSTS Overview --
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I'm in agreement on most everything you've said, except this one.
I
downloaded his HOSTS file and gave it a whirl. In 98 I didn't really
notice any slowdown in browsing, but for some reason XP must process
it much more slowly, because there's a noticeable slowdown in
browsing. But The MAIN reason I dumped it is because when I found out
I couldn't access certain websites that I maintain for people on a
local provider in our area... namely netINS.net. Their customer
websites are under the URL "showcase.netins.net/web/username", and
sure enough, it was listed in that HOSTS file. Apparently someone got
something they didn't like from one of the sites and "sent it in" and
had the whole domain blacklisted. It shouldn't be that easy to get an
otherwise respectable domain blacklisted.

OK, I'd better take that one back real quick. showcase.netins.net is
NOT on that list. It's on a list I got from
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.html
which is the one I had installed.
But I still really don't like the HOSTS file idea anyway, for the same
reason.

--
-- What happens if you get scared half to death twice? --