corrupted installation - error message
I've been using DNS 10 for 4 months. Yesterday I started not being able to use commands without using the control key, and the microphone wouldn't wake up without using the mouse or + key. (Windows XP-Pro, Dell XSP with 2 gig memory)
Today it stopped recognizing. I received a message from the program that the installation was corrupt -- and something like use set up to repair the installation, contact Nuance if necessary.
My questions are 1( do I simply uninstall and re-install? 2) Contact Nuance (I have no support contract with them)? or 3) is there a program on the installation disk which repairs the installation? I have backed up my user profiles (2) to zip files. Should I just copy the profiles to another partition. Dragon is on C, with Windows in Documents and Settings, All Users; I have documents on a separate partition. I also have Knowbrainer.
Thanks for any help you can give me.
S Daum
S Daum wrote: Today it
Today it stopped recognizing. I received a message from the program that the installation was corrupt -- and something like use set up to repair the installation, contact Nuance if necessary.
It sounds to me as if your user profile was corrupted more likely than the program. The first thing you should do is insert the CD and select the repair installation option as this is not likely to harm anything. You can then try using the user files still on the computer. If you still have a problem, use one of your backup user profiles.
--
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
The best microphones for Speech Recognition
Read, "Key Steps to High Speech Recognition Accuracy
Fixing corrupt installation or speech files Dragon 10
Thanks Martin, I'll try it.
S Daum
BUT: Before you do this
BUT: Before you do this copy your Backup subfolder so that you have a known good copy, especially if you have checked the "User Close | Automatically save user files" box under "Options | Miscellaneous". If you do, uncheck that before proceeding. Otherwise, make sure you do not choose to save your user files.
Bruce
Corrupted installation -- copy back up folder
I don't have anything in the back up folder, but I do have a back up that I made into a zip file (elsewhere on my hard drive and on CD). However, how do I correct my settings in the future so I do have one or 2 backups made or kept by Dragon? I looked in both the help menu and the options, and couldn't find the way to do this.
Thank you.
S. Daum
Corrupted file
One more question: I have the two profiles from 1 week ago, as zip files. Do I just unzip them, and copy them over the current files, or do I have to import them, as I did when I first upgraded from draggon 9.5 to 10? S. Daum
Copy. But: It seems from
Copy.
But: It seems from Chuck Runquist's comments that importing previous user files could be a source of corruption. I'm not sure if that is still the case, so maybe he or someone else could clarify that issue.
The safer alternative would be to export your custom words from 9.51, create a new 10 user, and then import the custom words.
Bruce
I'm not sure I understand
I closed the program because it was only giving error messages. So I may have backed up a corrupted file already. So I don't think I can open it again.
Usually when I close dragon, it backs up the files. I periodically copy those backups as zips to another partition, and then to cds. This problem may only be with one user, not the other, as it's the one I used today, minimally, and yesterday extensively. Each night when I close up, I have the program make backups, although for this profile, I don't believe I've used the optimizer in a while, maybe the settings aren't right. The other profile seems to optimize daily whether I dictate that day or not.
I have the zipped copy of the last back ups of both profile when it had no trouble was 1 week ago.
So please explain further, also How would I import the custom words? What would I save to export or import?
For both profiles, the back up folders 1 and 2 are empty
What am I doing wrong?
S Daum wrote: What am I
What am I doing wrong?
When you installed Version 10 did you completely uninstall the previous version or did you install over the old version?
Were you using your user profile(s) from the older version or had you created a new Version 10 profile from scratch?
--
Marty Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
On creating profiles with new install
1) I did use the dragon cleaning program when I uninstalled 9.5
2) I first created a new one, and then imported the profiles that I had used for about 1 month from dragon 9.0 and then 9.5
(I was new to the program at that point.)
S Daum wrote: 1) I did use
1) I did use the dragon cleaning program when I uninstalled 9.5
This is good to hear.
I first created a new one, and then imported the profiles that I had used for about 1 month from dragon 9.0 and then 9.5
It is important to create a new user in Dragon 10. What you can do is Export your Added Words (Word menu on Dragon bar and then Export) and Commands/Macros (Tools on Dragon bar and Command Browser) from the 9.5 profiles and then Import them to the new version 10 user profile.
--
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
The best microphones for Speech Recognition
Read, "Key Steps to High Speech Reco
Exporting Added words and Macros
Is it better to use the Dragon 10 utility or get words and Getwords and PutWords third party (Joel Gould) utility?
Do you have an opinion?
S Daum wrote: Is it better
Is it better to use the Dragon 10 utility or get words and Getwords and PutWords third party (Joel Gould) utility?
Just use the built in Export tools in Dragon 10. Get Words/Put Words still works. However, it is recommended to not use the add pronunciation feature.
--
Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
The best microphones for Speech Recognition
Read, "Key Steps to High Speech Reco
Oh, look for the
Oh, look for the Getwords/Putwords utilities here:
http://www.synapseadaptive.com/joel/getwordsautili...
This site also provides instructions. Unless you have the Pro version, which lets you export/import within the product.
If you have external backups, then you should be good to go with those. That's what I would try first with the corrupted user. Also I would wait a bit to see if there are any more suggestions. Or you could just create a new user to see if that solves the problem -- name it differently from any of your existing users.
Bruce
FWIW, I got the same message
FWIW, I got the same message when I let Windows XP ChkDsk reset all folder, file and registry settings to defaults for repair purposes. After I fixed the underlying problem, I re-enabled my ownership and access to my system, and DNS worked just fine again.
Of course, if you are experiencing system file corruption, then more than just DNS would be affected, but DNS might be hit early since it's such a large program and takes up more resources than most other programs.
Bottomline for anyone getting this message: First make sure your Windows operating system is healthy. (I like to run a freeware called ScanDefrag with all options enabled including details logs by the Kessels Defrag component, and then look at the logs when it's done).
pajenn wrote: FWIW, I got
FWIW, I got the same message when I let Windows XP ChkDsk reset all folder, file and registry settings to defaults for repair purposes.
That could be the source of the OP's problem, but lets make sure we're not chasing WMD here all over again -- or as Chuck R likes to say, that we are not splitting our hairs on Occam's razor
If the OP has done what you've done as described above, then the corrective is probably what you've suggested. But if not, then ignore this suggestion. As you note, it would have multiple effects. The fact that only one of two users is affected suggests that this hypothesis doesn't hold up.
The simplest thing to try is simply to do a repair install of DNS: Insert the install disk and follow the prompts to ask for a repair. It an easy, quick and non-destructive course of action.
The main reason why I doubt its going to work is the OP's suggestion that only one of two users seems to be affected, which is why Marty's original suggestion seems best to me until we learn otherwise. (I've definitely been watching too much House:-)
Bruce
BTW #1, to me DNS is a medium sized program and not an outstanding hog of dynamic resources. OTOH, it does gobble disproportionate amounts of disk space. Try something made by Adobe to see how it feels to get squeezed off your machine a program that is supposed to work for you!
BTW #2, I avoid M$ utilities like the plague they are -- why think the guys who create the problems are especially capable of solving them? I use Perfect Disk -- its a lot more capable than I am and has never pulled a M$ numbnut trick like the one you suffered.
I'm not a big fan of
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft either, but their SysInternals line of mostly small, fast and usually free utilities, like ScanDefrag, are great.
pajenn wrote: I'm not a big
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft either, but their SysInternals line of mostly small, fast and usually free utilities, like ScanDefrag, are great.
OK, I'll look into them, but it sounds to me they require extra care in use based on your story. What I like about PerfectDisk is that it seems immune to my congenital failure to pay attention to details -- it's NEVER hurt my system, even the time when I fired it up when I could have been arrested for even thinking about driving a car
But I do understand the allure of "free". Maybe its like ProcessExplorer, a third party utility that was so good M$ bought and incorporated it.
Bruce
ProcessExplorer is also by
ProcessExplorer is also by SysInternals, and yes, they were bought up by MS. ScanDefrag is a 1MB program - when you are done for the day, you can leave it to clean up and defrag your files and registry on reboot, so that the files are not in use, and then it can shut down the computer.
Perfect Disk is a whole other story. ~100MB installed with a very nice interface and graphics. As for the algorithm, maybe it's faster, or able to do the same thing in the background of an active system that other defraggers need to do on reboot before Windows activates all the system/registry files.
But as far as basic defragging goes, that's more or less a straight forward process of copying fragmented files into continuous blocks and moving them to the front of the drive that spins faster. The optimization consists of leaving the bigger, or less frequently used files, like movies, etc., further out since a computer's speed is unlikely to depend on having quicker access to them unless maybe you do a lot film editing etc. i.e. I think the end result should be more or less the same as with ScanDefrag.
pajenn wrote: I think the
I think the end result should be more or less the same as with ScanDefrag.
I guess I misunderstood your prior post. I thought you said that its use resulted in your system getting screwed up, notably DNS.
My point was that PerfectDisk, whether its faster, slower, nobler or grosser, is absolutely, impeccably safe -- based on my usage it will NEVER do anything to damage your system.
Bruce
My problems were caused by
My problems were caused by the shortcomings of Microsoft Windows XP combined with my heavy-handed use of it. Scandefrag can be set to run ChkDsk, which may fix a little too much if your system is already compromised like mine was, however, it wasn't the underlying problem.
I did try Perfect Disk trial version on my already compromised system in hopes that it could fix my master file tables, but all I got was a blank screen and a hanging system each time I ran an analysis with it. However, now that my computer is fixed, I'd take another look if I wanted a defragger-optimizer of the kind that runs in the background, monitors my system, and does it's thing automatically - maybe that's ideal for very powerful computers, but mine is just a 1.8GHz CPU Compaq laptop with 2.5GB of ram and a 118GB hard disk, so I prefer to keep the autoruns and background processes to a minimum; just a proper firewall and real-time virus protection, plus whatever apps I'm actually using (like DNS).
pajenn wrote: My problems
My problems were caused by the shortcomings of Microsoft Windows XP combined with my heavy-handed use of it. Scandefrag can be set to run ChkDsk, which may fix a little too much if your system is already compromised like mine was, however, it wasn't the underlying problem.
I did try Perfect Disk trial version on my already compromised system in hopes that it could fix my master file tables, but all I got was a blank screen and a hanging system each time I ran an analysis with it. However, now that my computer is fixed, I'd take another look if I wanted a defragger-optimizer of the kind that runs in the background, monitors my system, and does it's thing automatically - maybe that's ideal for very powerful computers, but mine is just a 1.8GHz CPU Compaq laptop with 2.5GB of ram and a 118GB hard disk, so I prefer to keep the autoruns and background processes to a minimum; just a proper firewall and real-time virus protection, plus whatever apps I'm actually using (like DNS).
If you ask me, running a defragger in the background is a prelude to disaster -- although I know power users on this forum who do that. But its not something I do. In fact I abhor background processes, especially the ones that get installed covertly without my full knowledge and consent. But that's not the main point -- its a digression.
The real issue here is professional efficiency, and the sub-issues are convenience and safety. While the package you chose may work for you, you seem to be a technically oriented user who doesn't nod out at the mention of "master file tables".
I think you miss the point of my original post -- its not about you, however clever and technologically self-reliant you may be, but about the typical user like the OP who -- I'm guessing -- uses the computer and its software exclusively to do work and doesn't particularly enjoy the computer for its Ding-an-sich quiddity, i.e., as a source of entertainment.
You OTOH -- I'm guessing again -- enjoy fiddling with the computer as much as I did in my younger days. However, most SR users aren't that way -- the computer is a means of getting a job done, and they don't benefit from fiddling with it or figuring out how and why it goes wrong. Any amount of time they spen on any aspect of computer maintenance or enhancement is time subtracted from their 2000 or so annual billable hours. Its those billable hours that are the manifestation of what moved the user to get professional training and whatever certification might be necessary to practice the acquired skills, and that allow -- nay, dicatate that -- the professional computer user seek the best gear available for the job at an affordable level.
Bruce
Why not try Diskkeeper. I
Why not try Diskkeeper. http://www.diskeeper.com/ . I find it extremely good and very fast.
You have the option to run it automatically if you want.
Quentin
crivon1 wrote: Why not try
Why not try Diskkeeper. http://www.diskeeper.com/ . I find it extremely good and very fast.
You have the option to run it automatically if you want.
Quentin
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Diskeeper is the basis for the program that's included in Windows XP as the defragger.
I do notice they get pricey when you move past basic versions of Vista with their home version though.
admin wrote:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Diskeeper is the basis for the program that's included in Windows XP as the defragger.
Do'nt know. I never used WXP defragger, as diskeeper installs to replace it.
I do notice they get pricey when you move past basic versions of Vista with their home version though.
I bought it a number of years ago. and I have never seen any reason to update it. It's the 2003 version.
Quentin
I have tried it (the 2008
I have tried it (the 2008 Pro version; they might have a new one out). IMO, it's similar to PerfectDisk with a few less bells and whistles in the version I have. I was able to run it successfully, though it couldn't defrag my Windows $UsnJrnl files, but at least it was able to show me their horribly defragmented state. I needed a special Microsoft utility to delete them, which was part of the fix to my computer problems.
FWIW, I've also tried IObit Smart Defrag, Auslogics Disk Derag, Defraggler, JKdefrag, and probably some others, plus a bunch of Registry defraggers. JKdefragger is my favorite at the moment, and I usually run it using Scandefrag when I do so that I can get my system cleaned up, checked and registry defragged at the same time, and then have ScanDefrag turn the computer off. However, I also use DiskKeeper when I want a quick idea of what state my drive is in.
IOBit's SmartDefrag is a nice free alternative for those who want an automatic background defragger. Auslogics Disk Defrg is fast. Defraggler has other nice options, such as the option to move large files and/or media or other specified file types to the end of the drive.
pajenn
ProcessExplorer is also by SysInternals, and yes, they were bought up by MS. ScanDefrag is a 1MB program - when you are done for the day, you can leave it to clean up and defrag your files and registry on reboot, so that the files are not in use, and then it can shut down the computer.
Seems handy enough, but that chkdsk option with destructive low-level capabilities is worrisome. I won't ask what you did to get into that imbroglio in the first place
Perfect Disk is a whole other story. ~100MB installed with a very nice interface and graphics. As for the algorithm, maybe it's faster, or able to do the same thing in the background of an active system that other defraggers need to do on reboot before Windows activates all the system/registry files.
~100MB must be ballast they ship with the trial version -- my Add or Remove Programs entry claims ~32MB. Still a big difference, but there are differences in functionality as I've suggested previously.
But as far as basic defragging goes, that's more or less a straight forward process of copying fragmented files into continuous blocks and moving them to the front of the drive that spins faster. The optimization consists of leaving the bigger, or less frequently used files, like movies, etc., further out since a computer's speed is unlikely to depend on having quicker access to them unless maybe you do a lot film editing etc. i.e. I think the end result should be more or less the same as with ScanDefrag.
That's an interesting but apparently undocumented claim. In fact, I can't find an up-to-date comparison of defragging tools -- it seems to have become an unsexy software category. That probably means you're right.
As I've noted, I'm not knocking your choice, but I think you underrate features non-technical users might value.
Bruce
BruceCyr wrote: ~100MB must
~100MB must be ballast they ship with the trial version -- my Add or Remove Programs entry claims ~32MB. Still a big difference, but there are differences in functionality as I've suggested previously.
I still have the Rxaco PerfectDisk 2008 30-day trial version installed on another computer (for comparison purposes after it crashed my laptop). The Rxaco folder in Program Files contains 127MB of files in it. In Control Panel -> Add/Remove it shows only 27MB; the difference is what it leaves behind if you uninstall it (trial version at least)...
But I'm more worried about what these programs leave behind in the registry though. The crap just builds up despite how many reg cleaners you run, and in the end the only way to restore Windows performance is just to reinstall it from scratch, and then reinstall all the programs you are still using...
pajenn wrote: BruceCyr
~100MB must be ballast they ship with the trial version -- my Add or Remove Programs entry claims ~32MB. Still a big difference, but there are differences in functionality as I've suggested previously.
I still have the Rxaco PerfectDisk 2008 30-day trial version installed on another computer (for comparison purposes after it crashed my laptop). The Rxaco folder in Program Files contains 127MB of files in it. In Control Panel -> Add/Remove it shows only 27MB; the difference is what it leaves behind if you uninstall it (trial version at least)...
But I'm more worried about what these programs leave behind in the registry though. The crap just builds up despite how many reg cleaners you run, and in the end the only way to restore Windows performance is just to reinstall it from scratch, and then reinstall all the programs you are still using...
Like I said, they must put bloat in the demo versions. My install folder is only 18MB. Either that or maybe they load other potential applications they're trying to peddle.
In any case, it is a safe, efficient program. Your ScanDefrag is simply a shell to run M$'s plain-vanilla version of Diskeeper, which, if you scan the documentation, doesn't have the bells and whistles of the full version. Also ScanDefrag, per your documentation, exposes users to dangerous low-level options without, apparently, explaining these options. Otherwise, how would a sophisticated user like yourself have gotten your disk so screwed up?!
I repeat -- the big commercial programs are safe and efficient. ScanDefrag is anything but. Hard to say about the shareware alternatives you mention. My rule is that before I try shareware, it has to have full five cow ratings from at least 1,000 users. Some shareware is pretty good, and the creator opts to continue it as shareware because the upside potential going full commercial doesn't seem worth the effort. But a lot of shareware, probably more than half, remains mediocre in my experience.
BTW, is there some point you're trying to make? Because if there is, it would say a lot time and effort to move directly to that.
Bruce
I think this thread has
I think this thread has moved away from the original question.
I'd say start a new thread.
Skip
BruceCyr wrote: Your
Your ScanDefrag is simply a shell to run M$'s plain-vanilla version of Diskeeper, which, if you scan the documentation, doesn't have the bells and whistles of the full version. Also ScanDefrag, per your documentation, exposes users to dangerous low-level options without, apparently, explaining these options. Otherwise, how would a sophisticated user like yourself have gotten your disk so screwed up?!
Again, ScanDefrag did not screw up my disks, and I knew full well what would happen when I chose to let ChkDsk 'fix' my system. The problem was that it also needed to do some legitimate fixing, so I had to run it anyway - there is no real alternative to the ChkDsk utility that I know of.
Details of ChkDsk bug here for anyone interested: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/831374/
And ScanDefrag can either run the standard MS defrag utility, which I agree is nothing special, or the JkDefrag utility, which imo is one of the best, but it's slow so that's why I like to use the ScanDefrag shell to run it at night when I'm asleep, and automatically shut down the computer when done.
]BTW, is there some point you're trying to make? Because if there is, it would say a lot time and effort to move directly to that.
Bruce
My point, originally at least, was that the error message mentioned in the original post, may be due to general Windows problems - perhaps not in this case, but in general. And I suggested a basic freeware tool for Windows maintenance and optimization. The rest of my posts have simply been replies to subsequent points that were raised.
As far as the defragger debate goes, I've tried a bunch of them, and based on my experience, the extra bang you get from the commercial defrag programs is not the safety or stability, but a nicer, more user-friendly interface, better documentation, better graphical representation, and more automated features that you can choose to let run in the background.
That said, programs like ScanDefrag are not overly complicated. You still get a graphical interface, with check boxes and pull-down menus for choosing what to run, and a 'configure' tab next to each for choosing the settings.
pajenn wrote: I'm not a big
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft either, but their SysInternals line of mostly small, fast and usually free utilities, like ScanDefrag, are great.
Mystery solved! SysInternalsSuite can be obtained here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/0e...
but you cannot find ScanDefrag amongst its many goodies. To get it, go here:
http://majorgeeks.com/ScanDefrag_d5108.html
"ScanDefrag is a small utility program that configures and runs Microsoft's or Norton's disk utilities as part of the next Window's startup process. This can result in less restarts and cleaner runs. Some features include:
Screen saver is automatically disabled. (It will be re-enabled after selected maintenance programs are completed.)
Maintenance is performed in a system state more condusive to disk utilities.
Items are run consecutively without idle periods.
Optional computer shutdown or restart when complete.
Choice of Norton Disk Doctor, Microsoft Scandisk, or Chkdsk.
Choice of Norton Speed Disk, Microsoft's Defragmenter, or Kessel's Defragmenter.
Option to run Sysinternal's PageDefrag if 2000, XP, or Server 2003.
Option to change or disable the shutdown/restart intervals.
Option to automatically logon to system to run maintenance programs. Logon information will be restored to original state after ScanDefrag restarts. (2000, XP, Server 2003, Server 2008, or Vista only)
Option to create a System Restore Point before running maintenance programs (XP, Vista only)
Built-in Task Scheduler.
Command line switches for automated maintenance.
Viewable log file created with each run.
Ability to Add/Remove user defined processes in the "Restrictive Mode" configuration. (98, ME only)"
This probably explains why I was mystified by your reference. Might also explain why its uncharacteristically risky when compared to the SysInternals products. Finally, it means that by default it actually uses the minimal version of Diskeeper that M$ incorporates into Windoze.
Bruce
Your picture
It's very disturbing and bothersome
S Daum wrote: It's very
It's very disturbing and bothersome
Well, I think Marty is giving you great guidance. I think you should follow his lead in this matter.
Bruce
I think she meant pajenn's
I think she meant pajenn's picture. She said "Your Picture" in the comment subject line.
Skip
admin wrote: I think she
I think she meant pajenn's picture. She said "Your Picture" in the comment subject line.
Skip
Hunh! I missed that.
Bruce
How can I create a new command group?
Does anyone know how I can create a new command group? P