Robbie

I've deleted and then recreated the media player databse and the problem just returns and I don't have any tags. I've checked the folders that are being monitored and they are the correct folders. I'm at a complete loss what to do! It would be helpful if I could delete WMP off the computer, delete every single file associated with WMP and reinstall but there's no option to do that.

Can anybody help me with a rather annoying problem I have with WMP11? Almost every song I have on my computer (Vista) is showing up twice on WMP. This problem started a few days ago, the reason for which I have no clue. As a result I can't use WMP to play my music as I either have to listen to the song twice or forward to the next track. I've tried deleting the playlist files database but when I recreate the list the same thing happens once again. Has anyone got any idea what may have caused this and offer a solution to this problem?

I think the original poster (tommyk) is getting the Foxit reader program mixed up with Firefox, hence the Mozilla reference in his first post. tommyk - they are from different corporations. If you do accidentally download the ask.com toolbar when downloading foxit reader then the toolbar can be removed via the add/remove programs feature in Windows.

I haven't used XP for a while but I remember a similar problem where some programs wouldn't close properly. I recall it being due to a registry hive problem and solved it by downloading UPHClean from Microsoft. It may not be the same problem as you are encountering but you could try downloading the application: http://www.microsoft.com/downloadS/details...;displaylang=en

Seeing this post did remind me of that other post. Two in a week sounds rather coincidental and both are new posters. Strange...

I still prefer the search facility in XP rather than Vista. I find that XP's search facility is more flexible.

You've got two interlinked problems here that must put you in a very awkward position. The guy is your friend and rightly you want to help in anyway that you can, although your friend doesn't seem to even acknowledge there is a problem (and drinking 10 to 15 pints of alcohol every day is a sure sign of a very serious problem). But he is also your employee and this must put you in a position where he is abusing not only your friendship but also your trust (as his employer) as he probably isn't being very efficient if he is turning up late and perhaps causing other problems too - maybe not pulling his weight when he is there? It's a dilemma I wouldn't want to have to face but somewhere down the line if he doesn't face up to his problems then you may have no option but to decide whether he can be both your friend AND your employee. Sorry if that isn't helpful but it is inevitable if things continue as they are. For the friend part you can only be there for him if he is prepared to accept he has a problem, as you have seen you can't force him to stop drinking and if you did he would probably become resentful and argumentative - the power of denial. For the other part, the employer / employee relationship side of things, that one is tougher still. Good luck, hopefully your friend will eventually realise he has a serious problem and realise that he has people who are concerned and care about him and that he takes positive steps to do something about it.

Unfortunately for the original poster who has concerns for his friend (as he is in the UK) you can't force anyone to take treatment unless the person is "sectioned", that is held under the relevant provisions (sections) of the Mental Health Act 1983. Here's a brief outline of what this entails: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople...alth/DG_4014771 Whilst people who drink to excess or take drugs can sometimes be a danger to themselves or to others, unless they are in imminent danger of harming themselves or others then there's little that can be done, except on a voluntary basis. If they are in imminent danger then a close relative (or the person his or herself) can phone the police or emergency services who can take the person to a place of safety whilst awaiting a medical examination by a relevant Doctor. Normally the person would be taken to a police station or a hospital. Then a decision can be made under the terms of the above Act to "section" the person if needed. But most, in fact the vast, majority of people who abuse alcohol will not end up in such a situation. Arrested maybe, but for being drunk rather than for anything else. From my experience of people with serious alcohol problems, it is a downward spiral that unless checked can involve loss of jobs, friends, partners, the house and in most cases the certainty of serious health problems. However, unless the person concerned is willing to make the first move (to acknowledge there is a problem in the first place) then no solution may ever be forthcoming. Some people sadly will eventually just drink themselves to death - I know people who have done this and there's nothing you can do if the person themselves doesn't want to do anything, unless their mental health does deteriorate to the extent where they can be sectioned against their will. If the person acknowledges there is a problem and wants to do something about it then they can start to get better with the right treatment.

for news http://www.bbc.co.uk/ for local news http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/ and for entertainment http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ I visit each at least once a day.

If you right-click anywhere in the blank area in the Analysis Complete screen after running Analyze there is the option to View Detailed Results for all sections to be cleaned rather than just an individual section. The summary is welcome but it would be good to be able to choose View Detailed Results or View Summary Results as an option that can be permanently toggled on or off, possibly in the Options -> Advanced section.

If you right-click anywhere in the blank area in the Analysis Complete screen after running Analyze there is the option to View Detailed Results for all sections to be cleaned rather than just an individual section. The summary is welcome but it would be good to be able to choose View Detailed Results or View Summary Results as an option that can be permanently toggled on or off, possibly in the Options -> Advanced section.

Right clicking on any file on my computer then choosing Properties -> Security, I normally see just four Group or User Names (I only have the one user account on my computer). These are: Authenticated Users SYSTEM Administrators (<computer name>\Administrators) Users (<computer name>\Users) and each with its own set of permissions. these are the basic four group or user names that should be seen as far as I am aware, though certain types of files may have one or two additional group or user names and shared files have an additional one possibly called Everyone. I assume you are seeing more than just the basic four? Or four like me but with different names?

I believe that you may have to remove the account user permissions in Properties -> Security in the root directory in Computer by right clicking on the actual drive and not on any individual file. This is for Vista, I couldn't say whether it's the same for XP etc (where you would have to look in My Computer). But if no harm is being caused then why not leave well alone? If you do something wrong then you could cause all sorts of problems. At the very least, back up everything (files etc) first before messing with security settings.

I've got one. Thanks for the suggestion hazel.

My nephew's hard drive on his laptop is on its way out. He can no longer boot into Windows but I can see all his documents using a Linux Live CD (Slax). Can anyone suggest an easy way that he can rescue all his personal documents (photos, music, other documents) in a quick and easy way? He could email them to himself as I can connect to the internet through the Live disk. Is there any easier way than emailing one picture etc at a time. Is there an easy way to connect to another computer and save everything (about 2.3GB worth of files) in a minimum amount of time? I don't know how to set up a slave drive so an easy suggestion would be welcome. The local computer repair shop is quoting a ?50 (about US $75) charge to do this. He doesn't have the money for this as he needs to buy a new hard drive and that will be fairly expensive. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Also, with Spybot S&D (I don't know about the other two as I've never used them) as well as the site names being viewable in Internet Explorer in Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Restricted Sites -> Sites I believe the same site names are also viewable (if running Firefox) in Tools -> Options -> Security -> Exceptions.

I checked the SMINST folder, which on my HP computer is in the Program Files directory (but is in the Windows directory on my other computer) and it definitely wasn't there, nor anywhere else on the computer. I may copy the recguard file over and then run it at startup and see what happens.

at least system restore hadn't been enabled for the recovery partition on my computer nor had the "index this drive for faster searching" option been chosen either. My main concern about leaving the recovery partition so easily accessible is for those people who are curious by nature and after right clicking on the recovery partition wonder to themselves "what does this format option do...?"!

Recguard is on my other computer which also has a Recovery Partition but is not on my new HP computer (I've done an extended search for it, definitely not there). However I don't think recguard actually hides the partition but rather just locks it so that no files or folders protected by it can be accessed. On my other computer the actual factory image is on a specially configured partition with no drive letter and is not visible except in disk management where it still cannot be accessed - the partition uses "EISA configuration" which seems to be the special key to hiding the partition and is the normal method used by computer manufacturers to store the recovery partition (presumably it's also called the "host protected area"?). I have tinkered about with the recovery partition on my XP computer by using special software to change the attributes which hides / unhides the partition and adds a drive letter and I was able to see the partition in Windows Explorer - clicking on Recovery folder in that partition then brought recguard into play as all the files were locked away and couldn't be touched. I then just removed the drive letter and hid the partition again to keep it safe. Anyway, I digress! On my new HP computer I've used TweakVI to hide drive D: (that holds the recovery partition) from being shown in Windows Explorer though it is still easily accessible via Disk Management. Not 100% satisfactory but it should be enough. It's not very clever of HP to leave the recovery partition so open like that though - unless it is deliberate since there is an option within Recovery Manager to delete the Recovery partition and if it was locked with this special EISA configuration I'd imagine it wouldn't be possible to access the partition from Windows let alone delete it. However a type of recguard must still be in use as the main recovery folder on that partition is locked though there are a handful of files on the partition that are visible and could presumably be deleted and of course the whole partition can be formatted as it's accessible, which would then destroy the whole partition and everything on it anyway.

I'm keeping the HP recovery partition too, at only 12GB it's not exactly taking up a lot of space and I never know when I may need it. The first thing I did after setting up the system was to create the set of recovery DVDs that the Recovery Disc Creation program allows. It's unnecessary to do this and probably not advisable but after initial setup I always test both the recovery partition and the recovery discs to check that both work properly (I'd rather know if there was a problem at the outset than if I really needed to do a recovery months down the line). Both worked fine. As you said, recovery from the partition is much quicker and easier than using the disks. Unlike other PCs I've had before, the recovery partition on my new HP isn't hidden which makes it easy to (accidentally) format (and to remove by choice as there's an option in Recovery Manager to do that). I've used the free TweakVI utility program to remove the recovery partition from showing in Windows Explorer, so at least it's hidden from view but still accessible when I need it.

Thanks Dennis That was one of the articles I read last night and couldn't find the answer / confirmation I was looking for - yet upon reading it this time the answer I am looking for is at the 4th bullet point! "One of the four partitions may be designated as an extended DOS partition. This partition may then be subdivided into multiple logical partitions. This is the way that two or more logical DOS volumes can be placed on a single hard disk" I also believe that this article was one of the first I read last night so had I taken my time to read it properly I could have saved all my confusion and possible worry and definitely would have saved time googling looking for the answer! All I really took in at the time was point number one: "A maximum of four partitions can be placed on any hard disk. These are sometimes called primary partitions. The limitation of four is one that is imposed on the system by the way that the master boot record is structured." Thanks again, I now feel reassured. And next time I'll take my time to read things more closely!

I thought about posting this in the ongoing thread about partitioning a hard drive but thought that perhaps this may be better in its own thread. I've just purchased a new computer, this one has a 320GB HDD, so it makes sense to partition the disk. As it's Vista I'm using Microsoft's own Disk Management Utility (DMU). I've read through googling that a disk can have 4 primary partitions but then there are extended and logical partitions too, which has somewhat confused me... This is what the disk was labelled as and divided into when I bought it: C: HP partition (286GB) D: FACTORY_IMAGE (12GB) (Total HD being 298GB which is also the same as 320GB depending on how gigabytes are measured) So IO don't think there is any other, hidden, partitions such as a Host Protected Area I decided initially to shrink the C: partition to 60GB, more than sufficient but the DMU won't allow me to shrink that partition below 51GB anyway so I rounded it up to 60GB. I then created a new Simple Volume as the DMU likes to call the whole partitioning process and labelled this Data and Media. So now I had the following: C: Vista (I renamed the partition) (60GB) D: FACTORY_IMAGE (12GB) J: Data and Media (226GB) Each partition shows in Disk Management as a Primary Partition, though of course the C: partition is also the Active Partition. Upon further though I decided I wanted all my media (music and video) files to go into their own partition and having read around the internet I learned it was possible to have 4 partitions. So I decided to shrink partition J: and create another, fourth, partition for Media. However, this time the partition I created does not show as a Primary Partition but rather a Logical Drive. This is highlighted in Disk Management as the partition being colour coded blue (indicating Logical Drive) as well the graphical representation of the partition being surrounded by a green box (indicating Extended Partition). This is further shown if I decide to delete this Logical Drive, the space does not become Unallocated, as when a Primary Partition is deleted but rather Free Space. Further their is then a secondary choice to delete this Free Space, which shows in the right click menu as "Delete Partition" with a warning message then displaying is I choose this saying "This is an extended partition" and then warning about the partition becoming inaccessible etc. Deleting this then reverts the space to unallocated. I apologise if this is long winded, it is at this point I am failing to understand: 1. why the 4th partition I created isn't a Primary Partition 2. am I right in thinking that the Media partition I created is a logical drive on an extended partition? If so, what is the extended partition an extension of?! Is it an extension of the J: partition above? If so, that's only 3 primary partitions I have been allowed before an extended partition and then logical drive appeared. I have tried and have found the extended partition can be divided into more than just one logical drive as I further split the Media (logical drive) partition to create a Media partition and a small Backup partition for computer maintenance (eg to store program set up files). The more I read about all this around the internet the more confused I become... so could someone answer a few of queries for me (hopefully I haven't confused everyone as much as I've confused myself!)? 1. To have logical drives am I correct in thinking that the disk can only be divided into 3 Primary Partitions with the 4th partition being the Extended Partition, which can then be split into a number of Logical Drives? 2. Can I easily store data on Logical Drives without causing any problems for myself? 3. Ideally I would like the following setup: C: Vista (60GB) (shows as Primary Partition) D: FACTORY_IMAGE (12GB) (shows as Primary Partition) J: Data (80GB) (shows as Primary Partition) K: Media (120GB) (shows as Logical Drive) L: Backup (26GB) (shows as Logical Drive) (I assume K: and L: are part of the same Extended Partition) Will I be able to fill all these partitions up with files without worrying about any access problems? For example, I'd hate to burn a number of my CDs to K: and then find I can't access the files somewhere down the line, or store all my project files on J: and then see them disappear. Sorry for the length of this post, I'm not used to having more than 2 partitions to deal with on Vista so I need to be sure that what I have outlined above (at 3.) is perfectly fine and won't cause any computer problems or loss of data. Thanks in advance for any answers or thoughts.

I don't have Windows Update set to Automatic Update so when I run that command I get the manual update screen in Internet Explorer. Have you tried turning off Windows Update to run automatically in Control Panel - it should be in Security Centre if I recall correctly, I'm now on my Vista laptop so I haven't got access to XP (and perhaps then running that command again to see if it then works) and then afterwards turning Windows Updates back on to automatic.

For XP try Start -> Run and type "wupdmgr.exe" (without the quotation marks). It should start Windows Update. Is it possible a procedure you have ran has hidden the icon? Perhaps right click the system tray, Properties and check to see if Hide Inactive Icons is clicked. If so click on Customize and make an adjustment as necessary to show the relevant icon.

One other suggestion: did you use a digital camera when taking the photographs? If so, did you use a memory card and if you did have you tried connecting the camera to your computer and running Recuva in both normal and Deep Scan on that "drive"? It's a long shot but if you have used a digital camera it may work.