After cloning drive with drivexml internet explorer not working properly?

[Majestic]

So I cloned a clients dieing hard drive with drivexml off Hirens cd. Anyway, since doing so when I use Internet Explorer and try to download a file, the Save, Open or Cancel buttons do not work at all. I have tried to get set permissions on program files (x86) and program files as well as the user folder to the owner as well as deleted the internet explorer download history and temporary files and reset internet explorer itself.

I have also gone into add/remove programs and window services then removed and Internet Explorer (10) and rebooted, then reinstalled it. Interestingly enough the menu item for internet explorer did NOT come back however I am able to type iexplore and it will start in the start / run box.

Not sure what to do here at this point.

I have downloaded firefox and installed and it works perfectly. I'm thinking I have missed something somewhere?

This is a machine running Windows 7 64 bit with Internet Explorer 10 as mentioned.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Majestic

 

[johnrobert]

Since IE is built into the core of the OS obviously something went wrong.
The only program I would ever use for cloning is Acronis never let me down

 

[FremontPC]

Sounds like a good time for sfc /scannow.

Run a chkdsk /f first.

 

[Majestic]

Sounds like a good time for sfc /scannow.

Run a chkdsk /f first.

That's a good idea. Meant to do that earlier but forgot to. Trying that now.

 

[Majestic]

Since IE is built into the core of the OS obviously something went wrong.
The only program I would ever use for cloning is Acronis never let me down

exactly... however that's for next time. I'm trying to fix the current problem as the drive is dieing as I mentioned and would take forever to re-clone.

 

[16k_zx81]

Yep. There's a thread here that includes discussion with one of the developers of dxml, and its an informative read, to say the least.

Personally, I would not touch that product with a bargepole.

Sorry, this doesn't really help with the situation you are in, but I mention it because that particular piece of software is really not suitable for professional use

 

[Majestic]

Yep. There's a thread here that includes discussion with one of the developers of dxml, and its an informative read, to say the least.

Personally, I would not touch that product with a bargepole.

Sorry, this doesn't really help with the situation you are in, but I mention it because that particular piece of software is really not suitable for professional use

Lesson learned. In the future I'll only use Acronis, Ghost or perhaps ToDo Backup.

In any case, I have returned the machine to the client and set him up with firefox.

Thanks all for your input!

Majestic

 

[FremontPC]

Though, there's no guarantee that the others would do better with a drive that's losing bits and chunks.

That being said, I've pretty much stuck with Acronis, Macrium or ddrescue. Todo has been getting panned at Wilder's as of late. Earlier versions fared better, so you may want to keep clear of that until you hear feedback otherwise.

 

[NETWizz]

Why not just use Microsoft's free products ImageX and DISM...

They are pretty much rock solid.

 

[Majestic]

Why not just use Microsoft's free products ImageX and DISM...

They are pretty much rock solid.

I'm not familiar with these two products. Got a link ? Sounds interesting.

 

[Majestic]

Though, there's no guarantee that the others would do better with a drive that's losing bits and chunks.

That being said, I've pretty much stuck with Acronis, Macrium or ddrescue. Todo has been getting panned at Wilder's as of late. Earlier versions fared better, so you may want to keep clear of that until you hear feedback otherwise.

Yup definitely going to stick to Acronis. Some products arent so reliable it seems !

 

[GeeksInKhakis]

Sounds like a good time for sfc /scannow.

Run a chkdsk /f first.

That's a good idea. Meant to do that earlier but forgot to. Trying that now.

I have found that an 'in place upgrade' has a better success rate than 'sfc /scannow'.