My Desktop Items Have Dissappeared Help Me Please

[sinned1]

Can someone help me, this happens sometimes when i turn on my computer, all my desktop items dissappear, they are not there also my bars at the bottom of the page have dissappeared, but my wallpaper is there, i am running Windows XP, Zone Alarm, Ad-Aware, and Ewido, hope someone can help, i reboot the computer same again, try again the same, after 3 to 4 times everything is back to normal. Very Weird..........:mad:

[Grim]

Hmm, thats strange.

Do you know the option that lets you decide wether or not you want them to be displayed? (Right click desktop>>>Arrange Icons By>>>>"show desktop items". Is that option selected?

[RANDOID]

i think he's talking about explorer crashing on startup.

personaly i'd re-install windows.

[Grim]

Hmm, missed that part about the "bars" there.
Are you reffering to the Start menu ? :confused:


Why dont you launch Explorer?

Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE and luach the task manager, then create a new process (browse to the windows folder, and look for explorer.exe) ;)

[budsmoka]

is there an error msg that comes up when windows starts up?

[q9]

When that happens, press Ctr+Alt+Del, select Task Manager, then File and then New task (run). Type explorer.exe

[RANDOID]

That doesn't solve the problem. its a band aid.

and i think that perhaps your not reading the posts...

Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE and luach the task manager, then create a new process (browse to the windows folder, and look for explorer.exe) ;)

[q9]

That doesn't solve the problem. its a band aid.

Yes, but it works. You know what? I have come across this behaviour quite a lot on our work computers. Doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. most likely it is a buggy bit of software that has some one in a million problem that isn't catered for particularly well by the developers. Trying to do anything but a bandaid solution wont really work, and you'll spend a lot of time trying to track it down. Sure, you can disable startup services/programs until you find (or think you find) it, but that is just a bandaid as well. Chances are, unless it is some sort of unauthorised software, you'll never find it, and most of the time it wont actually matter.



and i think that perhaps your not reading the posts...

So what? So I posted the same solution (though slightly different)...deal with it.

[RANDOID]

Its the exact same solution.

jerk.

There are regiustry cleaners, spyware and antivirus scanners which will fix the problem. Its like someone complaining that their moniter only turns on if you bash it. And your verry helpful solution is to bash it.

[q9]

jerk.

Why thank you! :)



There are regiustry cleaners, spyware and antivirus scanners which will fix the problem.

So in our network, where there are no viruses, registry problems or spyware (we've checked and checked and checked!), what is your solution then?

Unfortunately (in some cases) it seems to be something beyond the control of us mere mortals that have no access to source code to fix the actual causes of these problems. I have really only noticed this behaviour with XP for some reason. So we manually call up explorer.exe and all is right with the world.

Usually quicker and nicer than rebooting. :)

[RANDOID]

You skipped noting registry cleaners.

Make no mistake, your far form as smart as you think you are.

[q9]

Make no mistake, your far form as smart as you think you are.

Once again, I thankyou for your comment :) It means so much to me that you took the time to tell me that. I am sure everyone appreciates your efforts.

However I must point out that you still offer no further solutions when it is "none of the above".

Could it be that Windows XP isn't actually the best, most robust OS ever produced? And why is it only XP that seems to do this? I have my suspicions that it has something to do with the boot process that is designed to deliver a desktop fairly quickly to the user while other stuff loads in the background.

Again, you may be able to "solve" this behaviour by disabling some services, but that is still a "band aid" where those services are needed or desirable - no? Which band aid do you prefer?

[RANDOID]

Could it be that Windows XP isn't actually the best, most robust OS ever produced? And why is it only XP that seems to do this? I have my suspicions that it has something to do with the boot process that is designed to deliver a desktop fairly quickly to the user while other stuff loads in the background.I've had all the OS's since 3.1, They all do it.

Registry cleaners, spyware scaners and antivirus scaners will fix the problem. Its has happened more than once to me, and after a miriad of scans, it solves the problem. I can't offer any programs, becuse i just keep scanning untill the problem fixes.


Again, you may be able to "solve" this behaviour by disabling some services, but that is still a "band aid" where those services are needed or desirable - no? Which band aid do you prefer?I never meantioned disabling services.


However I must point out that you still offer no further solutions when it is "none of the above".Obviously, you don't have the capasity to read threads before responding. I posed an answer which would fix the problem. I was one of the first.

[Grim]

Now now guys, lets not argue, could we try to RESOLVE the problem here?
I know that I may not exactly be the best person to request this (read under name:| :p), but c'mon, this isnt needed here.




Could it be that Windows XP isn't actually the best, most robust OS ever produced?
You're correct, it most definatly isnt, I dont use it, w2k is currently the best (never fully tried out vista ;])




And why is it only XP that seems to do this? I have my suspicions that it has something to do with the boot process that is designed to deliver a desktop fairly quickly to the user while other stuff loads in the background.

As Ranoid said, XP is not the only v of windoze that does this, but its certainly the one that does it most often!
I too suspect that it may have something to do with that Q9, (nice theory there ;)), but I think that even if that had something to do with it, it isnt the real issue, something else is causing that.

Registry programs help sometimes, and of course.. a antimalware app might do the trick, provided that it is in fact malware, but it wont always solve it. TRUST ME!.. sometimes wondoze just gets soo mucked.. that nothing but a reinstall with resolve things.
[/QUOTE]


I've had all the OS's since 3.1, They all do it.
uhm... not really ALLL. But a lot of them. win 95,98,2k,and Xp.. and then there's the all time KING of such BS... windows ME-ssup :|.
I dont recall 3.1 ever doing that, 3.1 doesnt use the explorer.exe file that way ;). If you ask me, 3.1 98 and w2k are the most stable versions of windows ever created.

ANYWHO!
Havent heard from you sinned, but Have you ever tried booting up in safe mode, and seeing if the same thing happens? that would tell us a lot it would...

[RANDOID]

When maintained properly, XP can be quite stable.

3.1's File managment program frequently froze. It did the same thing, the problem is not with explorer.exe. Its with the interaction of forign elements in the registry

[Grim]

Why yes Mr. Randoid, :rolleyes:

While that is NOT SO, I wont bother to argue. As for XP being able to stand stable "if maintained".. duh, dont get diffucult, any OS will pretty much do the same... IF MAINTAINed, the question is just how stable will it be.. provided all that is seen to, how stable will it remain over time, and we all know... that XP isnt the king of that.

As I said, the same is true for most OS's, but no one can dispute that w2k is more stable.

I wonder where this dude is...

[RANDOID]

There may be more factors than program writup that would effect the stability of XP. There has been a remarkable increase of malicious programs distributed on computers. Since a lot of hackers can get XP source code, there's no wonder that they can effect it in such a way in which it makes it unstable.

Its popular to get onto the Microsoft bashing bandwagon, But reality is, everyones using microsoft programs. I and every bussness i ahve dealt with, use Office and XP as the promary operating system and processing programs.

Sticking to archaic and problamatic non-microsoft based programs will only leave you without a familuarity with the programs everyone else on the planet is using.

I've had Windows 2000, of all of the OS's i've had, the current SP2 version of XP contained on my laptop is the only OS i have yet had the need to reinstall.

[Grim]

And on you go in this guys thread... with your theories.

My point=
W2k is more stable than XP.
NO ONE, NOT YOU, not MSoft, noboddy can dispute that.

Oh BTW,... Hackers can get the source code to any windows OS, I dont see your point there... or anywhere else for that matter :rolleyes:.

Its so unfair, I just cant let your BS slide Randy, so if you keep it up.. this will continue, and sinned will come back to find a 4 page thread... on nothing he asked.
I hope an admin comes along and deletes these posts.

[RANDOID]

The old source code was never given out. XP's was to assist programser with intergrating their software to XP.

Grim... grim... grim... Take it easy on the tabacki!

(BTW i recieve a lot of pos reps arguing with you. Many can see that your full of it. "the guy is a tool")

[Grim]

The old source code was never given out. XP's was to assist programser with intergrating their software to XP.

You're right. I was thinking about something else (not SOURCE coding).



(BTW i recieve a lot of pos reps arguing with you. Many can see that your full of it. "the guy is a tool")
LMAO, I wouldnt even start.
I'd say, at least a 1/4 of the post reps Ive recieved were from cutting through your BS ;). Who ever said I was a "tool" must be some n00b, who hasnt been here long enough.. to see just what BS comes out in your average post.

But you see, unlike you.. I have NO PROBLEM admitting where I was incorrect. (as I've done above.. and I bet you just feel swell now ;)), but YOU on the other hand... you'd rather twist the point/argument and get sooo technical... just to prove your point. You NEVER concede randoid, and thats really bad man. That doesnt make you a very ... sociable person.
I dont want this thread to get hijacked Randoid, (any further). I'm seriously just going to make a thread for you and I to ramble on... when we find a topic we disagree on.
You can act really cocky.. and scoff at that thought if you wish, but Its obvious, that you and I, for whatever reason, tend to disagree a lot.
Could we stop loading up peoples threads please.