Another Dumb Windows Question

[Mike Rivers]

What time is it?

Everything seems to be there since I swapped disk drives in my desktop
computer, but today I clicked on the time display down in the lower
right corner of the screen that usually brings up a clock and lets you
set the computer's time.

Nothing happened. Right-clicking on the time brings up the pop-up
menu, but clicking on Adjust Date/Time does nothing. It appears that
the application (probably a DLL file) didn't make it through the disk-
to-disk copy.

How can I find out what it is, or replace it? Seems like whenever I
run SFC, something breaks so I don't want to do that blindly. Nor do I
want to reload Windows. Nor do I want to upgrade to XP. I don't want
much, I just want to watch my clock go around.

This is Windows 2000, and I don't see Date/Time on the Control Panel.
I can't remember if it was ever there.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mike Rivers > posted:

> What time is it?
>
> Everything seems to be there since I swapped disk drives in my desktop
> computer, but today I clicked on the time display down in the lower
> right corner of the screen that usually brings up a clock and lets you
> set the computer's time.
>
> Nothing happened. Right-clicking on the time brings up the pop-up
> menu, but clicking on Adjust Date/Time does nothing. It appears that
> the application (probably a DLL file) didn't make it through the disk-
> to-disk copy.
>
> How can I find out what it is, or replace it? Seems like whenever I
> run SFC, something breaks so I don't want to do that blindly. Nor do I
> want to reload Windows. Nor do I want to upgrade to XP. I don't want
> much, I just want to watch my clock go around.
>
> This is Windows 2000, and I don't see Date/Time on the Control Panel.
> I can't remember if it was ever there.
>
Date and time are in the "Control Panel > Regional Options". If it's
missing, I can't help you...

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 6:29 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:

> Date and time are in the "Control Panel > Regional Options". If it's
> missing, I can't help you...

That was the problem, but I found it in a roundabout way.

[Mike Rivers]

An interesting problem, now solved. The missing file was timedate.cpl.

I was able to locate the compressed version on the Windows
installation disk, expand it, put it where it belongs (system32
folder) and got my clock back. Actually, the file name was there, but
it was zero bytes in length, so useless. Probably if it wasn't there
at all, I might have had a clue with a "file not found" message.

Conquering Windows, one problem at a time. <g>

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> An interesting problem, now solved. The missing file was timedate.cpl.

> I was able to locate the compressed version on the Windows
> installation disk, expand it, put it where it belongs (system32
> folder) and got my clock back. Actually, the file name was there, but
> it was zero bytes in length, so useless. Probably if it wasn't there
> at all, I might have had a clue with a "file not found" message.

Except that the file was found, but empty.

> Conquering Windows, one problem at a time. <g>

Windows 2000 also has a repair procedure.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> An interesting problem, now solved. The missing file was timedate.cpl.
>
> I was able to locate the compressed version on the Windows
> installation disk, expand it, put it where it belongs (system32
> folder) and got my clock back. Actually, the file name was there, but
> it was zero bytes in length, so useless. Probably if it wasn't there
> at all, I might have had a clue with a "file not found" message.
>
> Conquering Windows, one problem at a time. <g>

Conquering Windows, one pain at a time. :-)

[Ron Capik]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> > An interesting problem, now solved. The missing file was timedate.cpl.
> >
> > I was able to locate the compressed version on the Windows
> > installation disk, expand it, put it where it belongs (system32
> > folder) and got my clock back. Actually, the file name was there, but
> > it was zero bytes in length, so useless. Probably if it wasn't there
> > at all, I might have had a clue with a "file not found" message.
> >
> > Conquering Windows, one problem at a time. <g>
>
> Conquering Windows, one pain at a time. :-)

....or as my old song goes:
[to the tune of "16 Tons" ]

(chorus)
Re-boot 16 times, what do you get
Another error message or the blue screen of death
My registry's corrupted and the re-boot's slow
I got my bugs from the Microsoft store
[ ... ]

Later...

Ron Capik [aka: the NJ Editorial Minstrel]
--

[Jason]

In article <592a02f4-6997-4f22-846c-
>, says...
> On Dec 17, 6:29 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
> > Date and time are in the "Control Panel > Regional Options". If it's
> > missing, I can't help you...
>
> That was the problem, but I found it in a roundabout way.
>
nistime (http://tf.nist.gov/service/its.htm) is free and works very
well. I've had problems with XP Pro reporting problems setting the clock
via timeservers on the internet. I told it not to bother; nistime does
the job.


--
reverse my name in email address

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ron Capik" > wrote in message....

> ...or as my old song goes:
> [to the tune of "16 Tons" ]
>
> (chorus)
> Re-boot 16 times, what do you get
> Another error message or the blue screen of death
> My registry's corrupted and the re-boot's slow
> I got my bugs from the Microsoft store
> [ ... ]


OOOOOO000000000ooooooooooooouch............... :-\

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
>
> An interesting problem, now solved. The missing file was timedate.cpl.

I guess the question should be... where the heck did it go?

> I was able to locate the compressed version on the Windows
> installation disk, expand it, put it where it belongs (system32
> folder) and got my clock back. Actually, the file name was there, but
> it was zero bytes in length, so useless. Probably if it wasn't there
> at all, I might have had a clue with a "file not found" message.

Now *that* is interesting work.

Did you determine that the file value is 0 if it happens to be turned off ??

> Conquering Windows, one problem at a time. <g>

You betcha'...... Vini Vidi Vici.... or something like that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jason" > wrote in message

> In article <592a02f4-6997-4f22-846c-
> >,
> says...
>> On Dec 17, 6:29 pm, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Date and time are in the "Control Panel > Regional
>>> Options". If it's missing, I can't help you...
>>
>> That was the problem, but I found it in a roundabout way.
>>
> nistime (http://tf.nist.gov/service/its.htm) is free and
> works very well. I've had problems with XP Pro reporting
> problems setting the clock via timeservers on the
> internet. I told it not to bother; nistime does the job.

Nistime works for me when the built-in XP facility doesn't.

I don't turn the XP facility off, though. Eventually it seems to get
through, I just don't always have the time to wait.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 10:52 pm, Jason > wrote:

> nistime (http://tf.nist.gov/service/its.htm) is free and works very
> well.

You apparently didn't understand my question. The problem wasn't that
I couldn't set the clock, but that the piece of Windows that's the
user interface for setting the clock was missing. While there may be
better aftermarket programs for keeping the clock accurate (I use one
called Atomic Clock Sync) I just wanted to restore what Windows
expects.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 3:34 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> Did you determine that the file value is 0 if it happens to be turned off ??

I dunno. How do you turn it off? What I'm talking about is the file
size shown by File Explorer. If it's zero, there's just an entry in
the directory with the file name, but no data in the file. Since this
isn't the file that holds the time (the computer did know what time it
is) there's no reason for it to be empty except that no data was
copied into it from the old disk drive.

As I said in a previous discussion, the old disk had some bad and
apparently uncorrectable spots on it, so some things didn't work.
That's why I needed to replace it. Apparently the disk-to-disk copy
utility that I used (the one that came with the new Western Digital
drive) didn't bother me with such details as "can't read sector
02347A3D" while copying, it just skipped whatever it couldn't do. I
also noticed that I didn't have any data in one of my Thunderbird
mailboxes, but I had all that mail on another computer, so I could
restore it easily.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Dec 18, 3:34 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:

>> Did you determine that the file value is 0 if it happens to be
>> turned off ??

> I dunno. How do you turn it off? What I'm talking about is the file
> size shown by File Explorer. If it's zero, there's just an entry in
> the directory with the file name, but no data in the file.

Correct.

> As I said in a previous discussion, the old disk had some bad and
> apparently uncorrectable spots on it, so some things didn't work.
> That's why I needed to replace it. Apparently the disk-to-disk copy
> utility that I used (the one that came with the new Western Digital
> drive) didn't bother me with such details as "can't read sector
> 02347A3D" while copying, it just skipped whatever it couldn't do

Something along that line, yes ... but it may also be that a chkdsk event
led to a disk repair with loss of file data. Drive Imaging software often as
a panel full of options, but possibly not the ones that come with a new
drive in retail pack.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> You apparently didn't understand my question. The problem wasn't that
> I couldn't set the clock, but that the piece of Windows that's the
> user interface for setting the clock was missing.

The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 11:58 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.

"Repair" is on the original installation CD. How does it take service
pack updates into account? If all it knows about is the original
version of the files it's checking (and replacing) how does it know it
isn't looking at a service pack update of that file (corrupted or
not)?

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>
>> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
>> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
>
> "Repair" is on the original installation CD. How does it take service
> pack updates into account? If all it knows about is the original
> version of the files it's checking (and replacing) how does it know it
> isn't looking at a service pack update of that file (corrupted or
> not)?

If it finds the same file with a newer revision number (embedded)
or file date, it typically asks if you want to replace a newer version
with the older verison.

OTOH, if you know exactly which file you need, just grab it out of
the installation and copy it into place.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message



> the old disk had some
> bad and apparently uncorrectable spots on it, so some
> things didn't work. That's why I needed to replace it.
> Apparently the disk-to-disk copy utility that I used (the
> one that came with the new Western Digital drive) didn't
> bother me with such details as "can't read sector
> 02347A3D" while copying, it just skipped whatever it
> couldn't do.

Most disk copying software will fail after finding the first unreadible
sector.

More likely - the disk was reporting correct reading to the copy program,
even when there were failures. I've seen this happen many times.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:19:18 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> "Repair" is on the original installation CD. How does it take service
>> pack updates into account? If all it knows about is the original
>> version of the files it's checking (and replacing) how does it know it
>> isn't looking at a service pack update of that file (corrupted or
>> not)?
>
>If it finds the same file with a newer revision number (embedded)
>or file date, it typically asks if you want to replace a newer version
>with the older verison.

You're talking about "The 'repair' option for the OS installation"
which can only be understood as meaning a full Repair Installation.
This is a very large sledgehammer to crack the small nut of one
missing file! There are, indeed, issues with using a pre-SP2
installation CD to perform a Repair Installation on an updated
Windows. (You can slipstream SP2 into your installation disk, but I
confidently guarantee that Mike doesn't want to know that advanced bit
of computing technique :-)

Are you maybe confusing a Repair Installation with the System File
Checker, a much simpler utility?

http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 1:19 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> OTOH, if you know exactly which file you need, just grab it out of
> the installation and copy it into place.

That's what I did, but it took a bit of digging to find out what file
I needed. What finally got it for me was a search through the Windows
knowledge base which got me to an article about running control panel
functions from the command line. It listed the function (Date/Time)
and the command (command timedate.cpl).

[Jason]

In article <8640a995-5ce6-45a3-8381-2953a1e04637
@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, says...
> I just wanted to restore what Windows
> expects.
>
Sometimes this works: run the windows command-line program, sfc. System
File Checker will ask for your installation CD and then ..slowly.. paw
through all the Windows component files to see if they're damaged and
will replace missing ones. It's smart enough to know about updates and
service packs that have changed files since their original installation.
It frequently does nothing useful, but it has repaired my xp system a
time or two. Syntax is sfc /scannow

Jason

--
reverse my name in email address

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> This is a very large sledgehammer to crack the small nut of one
> missing file!

But then you convienently snipped the next sentence which
suggested simply identifying the missing file and grabbing
it out of the installation to replace it.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 4:34 pm, Jason > wrote:

> Sometimes this works: run the windows command-line program, sfc.

That was going to be my first approach, but I thought that this was
just a corrupt or missing program and SFC both takes a long time,
sometimes replaces things that shouldn't be replaced, sometimes does
nothing, and is a pain because you need to insert exactly the right
disk (the one the OS was installed from - or at least one of exactly
the same version) and I have three Win2000 disks here and I usually
pick the wrong one first time through.

My actual question was not what to do about it, but what was the name
of the file that I was missing. So far nobody got that but me.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:20:06 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>> This is a very large sledgehammer to crack the small nut of one
>> missing file!
>
>But then you convienently snipped the next sentence which
>suggested simply identifying the missing file and grabbing
>it out of the installation to replace it.

No, YOU snipped it :-)
Here's your entire post:

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> You apparently didn't understand my question. The problem wasn't that
> I couldn't set the clock, but that the piece of Windows that's the
> user interface for setting the clock was missing.

The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 8:04 pm, Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.

Will it tell me what it did to make the repair? Will I learn anything
from using it?

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>>> This is a very large sledgehammer to crack the small nut of one
>>> missing file!
>>
>>But then you convienently snipped the next sentence which
>>suggested simply identifying the missing file and grabbing
>>it out of the installation to replace it.
>
> No, YOU snipped it :-)
> Here's your entire post:
>
> "Mike Rivers" wrote ...
>> You apparently didn't understand my question. The problem wasn't that
>> I couldn't set the clock, but that the piece of Windows that's the
>> user interface for setting the clock was missing.
>
> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.

No, Mr. Payne, that was NOT my entire post. Since you seem to
have missed the last sentence, here it is again...

> OTOH, if you know exactly which file you need, just grab it out of
> the installation and copy it into place.

If you are unable to read the entire messages, you might want to
check your newsreader client or your NNTP service.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:31:12 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
>> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
>
>No, Mr. Payne, that was NOT my entire post. Since you seem to
>have missed the last sentence, here it is again...
>
>> OTOH, if you know exactly which file you need, just grab it out of
>> the installation and copy it into place.
>
>If you are unable to read the entire messages, you might want to
>check your newsreader client or your NNTP service.

Not that it really matters, but seeing as you're calling me a liar -

Here's what I got at 16.58 GMT yesterday. Did you think there was
more?
................................
"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> You apparently didn't understand my question. The problem wasn't that
> I couldn't set the clock, but that the piece of Windows that's the
> user interface for setting the clock was missing.

The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
....................................

In a later post you elaborated a little. Quoted in full below. You
were still confusing the issue. A Repair Installation asks no
questions, it just re-installs everything. There's the Recovery
Console as well of course. But you wouldn't be recommending that for
a Windows that started up OK but just had one corrupt cpl file?

.....................................
>> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
>> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
>
> "Repair" is on the original installation CD. How does it take service
> pack updates into account? If all it knows about is the original
> version of the files it's checking (and replacing) how does it know it
> isn't looking at a service pack update of that file (corrupted or
> not)?

If it finds the same file with a newer revision number (embedded)
or file date, it typically asks if you want to replace a newer version
with the older verison.

OTOH, if you know exactly which file you need, just grab it out of
the installation and copy it into place.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> Not that it really matters, but seeing as you're calling me a liar -

Google Groups says you are mistaken.
I'll leave it at that since it isn't worth arguing.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 18, 8:04 pm, Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
> > kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
>
> Will it tell me what it did to make the repair? Will I learn anything
> from using it?

You will learn never to use it again unless your whole system is failing
miserably with little chance for a manual intervention.

It *will* eradicate all MS Updates, etc., though I'm not certain that 2K
even offers this function. I've used it on a few XP boxes, usually resulting
in the decision to back up and do a complete clean install. Repair is
essentially a complete install over the top of the current OS, and can lead
to all sorts of anomalies.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 18, 4:34 pm, Jason > wrote:
>
> > Sometimes this works: run the windows command-line program, sfc.
>
> That was going to be my first approach, but I thought that this was
> just a corrupt or missing program and SFC both takes a long time,
> sometimes replaces things that shouldn't be replaced, sometimes does
> nothing, and is a pain because you need to insert exactly the right
> disk (the one the OS was installed from - or at least one of exactly
> the same version) and I have three Win2000 disks here and I usually
> pick the wrong one first time through.
>
> My actual question was not what to do about it, but what was the name
> of the file that I was missing. So far nobody got that but me.

Not too many people are still in the habit of recognizing .cpl... or Command
Prompt (DOS) files these days.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 18, 3:34 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > Did you determine that the file value is 0 if it happens to be turned off ??
>
> I dunno. How do you turn it off?

Right click on the clock (if on) or anywhere in a blank section of the
taskbar (if off)... select "properties" and you will see on the first tabbed
page, a tick-box option to show or not to show the clock.

> What I'm talking about is the file
> size shown by File Explorer. If it's zero, there's just an entry in
> the directory with the file name, but no data in the file. Since this
> isn't the file that holds the time (the computer did know what time it
> is) there's no reason for it to be empty except that no data was
> copied into it from the old disk drive.

Hmmm... though I haven't had the issue, it seems like System File
Checker or perhaps choosing "repair errors" while running Scan Disk
should have brought these things forward.

You have immense patience.

Had I been in your shoes, with as much crap as you have loaded
into your systems for reviewing hardware and associated software
and or accompaning drivers, etc., I would never "copied" the bloated
and likely (or perhaps obviously) corrupted drive to beging with, but
rather done a completely clean install of 2K, slaved the old drive, and
collected missing personal files (mail, documents, addys, etc.) later.

> As I said in a previous discussion, the old disk had some bad and
> apparently uncorrectable spots on it, so some things didn't work.
> That's why I needed to replace it. Apparently the disk-to-disk copy
> utility that I used (the one that came with the new Western Digital
> drive) didn't bother me with such details as "can't read sector
> 02347A3D" while copying, it just skipped whatever it couldn't do.

If you feel as though you may be doing this multiple times in the coming
years, or doing it for other people, I recommend Acronis True Image 8.
My personal experience has been that anything which comes bundled
with a HD is a frisbee.

You have exemplary patience.... hopefully, not to your detriment in
that you just didn't do a clean install.

DM

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 19, 2:17 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> Not too many people are still in the habit of recognizing .cpl... or Command
> Prompt (DOS) files these days.

Yeah, and they probably don't know how to change the oil in their car,
either. ;)

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> Had I been in your shoes, with as much crap as you have loaded
> into your systems for reviewing hardware and associated software
> and or accompaning drivers, etc., I would never "copied" the bloated
> and likely (or perhaps obviously) corrupted drive to beging with

This is the "desk" computer. The only thing I do relative to reviews
on it is write them and gather data from the 'net. About the only non-
conputer stuff for which there's a driver loaded is my digital camera
and the Nomad Jukebox 3. Drivers for audio gear and audio software get
loaded on the old laptop that isn't used for anything else nowadays
except for net surfing in the living room.

> If you feel as though you may be doing this multiple times in the coming
> years, or doing it for other people, I recommend Acronis True Image 8.

I started out using Norton Ghost, but that complained about not having
a perfect disk to clone, so rather than try to make it perfect with
Scandisk and maybe make it worse, I decided to try the Western Digital
program, which apparently did the best it could.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 19, 2:28 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > Had I been in your shoes, with as much crap as you have loaded
> > into your systems for reviewing hardware and associated software
> > and or accompaning drivers, etc., I would never "copied" the bloated
> > and likely (or perhaps obviously) corrupted drive to begin with

> This is the "desk" computer. The only thing I do relative to reviews
> on it is write them and gather data from the 'net. About the only non-
> conputer stuff for which there's a driver loaded is my digital camera
> and the Nomad Jukebox 3. Drivers for audio gear and audio software get
> loaded on the old laptop that isn't used for anything else nowadays
> except for net surfing in the living room.

OK..

> > If you feel as though you may be doing this multiple times in the coming
> > years, or doing it for other people, I recommend Acronis True Image 8.

> I started out using Norton Ghost, but that complained about not having
> a perfect disk to clone, so rather than try to make it perfect with
> Scandisk and maybe make it worse, I decided to try the Western Digital
> program, which apparently did the best it could.

At least you're back up and running.... and if the clock anomaly is the
only issue you're dealing with... you're a lucky man. ;-)

Actually... True Image 8 has yielded me a problem or two this year on XP.


DM

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
>> The "repair" option for the OS installation takes care of this
>> kind of problem painlessly. Recommended.
>
> Will it tell me what it did to make the repair? Will I learn anything
> from using it?

I've never seen it report what it was repairing. But there may be
some "diagnostic" mode where it will tell you which files it is
replacing, etc.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 19, 6:50 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> >> The "repair" option for the OS installation

> I've never seen it report what it was repairing. But there may be
> some "diagnostic" mode where it will tell you which files it is
> replacing, etc.

Not that I've ever seen. If it's there, it must be a command line
switch that only those in the know who care know.