I have an old legacy VB6 application that uses the free ChilkatXML ActiveX DLL extensively. I recently installed this application on a customer's PC – running 64 Bit Win7 (which it usually runs okay on) – and the XML document saving functions are failing. At first it was even failing to open existing documents, but I ran the full Chilkat installer – as it's a free component – and that part at least appears to be fixed.
The customer admitted the PC previously had a virus on it, so I'm thinking there may be some residual OS damage the clean up operation has missed. I've opened the DLL in Dependency Walker, which reported an error with the SYSNTFY.DLL module not being found – although I've checked and that DLL does exist in their System32 folder. I've tried copying the 32Bit version of that dll from my system into their sysWOW64 folder but that didn't work either – not that I realistically expected it to.
So, any ideas on what I need to do to fix this problem please?
Related
I would like to know when do we need to place a file under
C:\Windows\System32 or C:\Windows\SysWOW64, on a 64-bits windows system.
I had two DLL's, one for 32-bit, one for 64-bit.
Logically, I thought I'd place the 32-bit DLL under C:\Windows\System32, and the 64-bit DLL under C:\Windows\SysWOW64.
To my surprise, it's the other way around! The 32-bit one goes into C:\Windows\SysWOW64, and the 64-bit DLL goes into C:\Windows\System32.
Very confusing stuff. What's the reason behind this?
I believe the intent was to rename System32, but so many applications hard-coded for that path, that it wasn't feasible to remove it.
SysWoW64 wasn't intended for the dlls of 64-bit systems, it's actually something like "Windows on Windows64", meaning the bits you need to run 32bit apps on a 64bit windows.
This article explains a bit:
Windows x64 has a directory System32 that contains 64-bit DLLs (sic!).
Thus native processes with a bitness of 64 find “their” DLLs where
they expect them: in the System32 folder. A second directory,
SysWOW64, contains the 32-bit DLLs. The file system redirector does
the magic of hiding the real System32 directory for 32-bit processes
and showing SysWOW64 under the name of System32.
If you're talking about an installer, you really should not hard-code the path to the system folder. Instead, let Windows take care of it for you based on whether or not your installer is running on the emulation layer.
I should add: You should not be putting your dll's into \system32\ anyway! Modify your code, modify your installer... find a home for your bits that is NOT anywhere under c:\windows\
For example, your installer puts your dlls into:
\program files\<your app dir>\
or
\program files\common files\<your app name>\
(Note: The way you actually do this is to use the environment var: %ProgramFiles% or
%ProgramFiles(x86)% to find where Program Files is.... you do not assume it is c:\program files\ ....)
and then sets a registry tag :
HKLM\software\<your app name>
-- dllLocation
The code that uses your dlls reads the registry, then dynamically links to the dlls in that location.
The above is the smart way to go.
You do not ever install your dlls, or third party dlls into \system32\ or \syswow64. If you have to statically load, you put your dlls in your exe dir (where they will be found). If you cannot predict the exe dir (e.g. some other exe is going to call your dll), you may have to put your dll dir into the search path (avoid this if at all poss!)
system32 and syswow64 are for Windows provided files... not for anyone elses files. The only reason folks got into the bad habit of putting stuff there is because it is always in the search path, and many apps/modules use static linking. (So, if you really get down to it, the real sin is static linking -- this is a sin in native code and managed code -- always always always dynamically link!)
Ran into the same issue and researched this for a few minutes.
I was taught to use Windows 3.1 and DOS, remember those days? Shortly after I worked with Macintosh computers strictly for some time, then began to sway back to Windows after buying a x64-bit machine.
There are actual reasons behind these changes (some would say historical significance), that are necessary for programmers to continue their work.
Most of the changes are mentioned above:
Program Files vs Program Files (x86)
In the beginning the 16/86bit files were written on, '86' Intel processors.
System32 really means System64 (on 64-bit Windows)
When developers first started working with Windows7, there were several compatibility issues where other applications where stored.
SysWOW64 really means SysWOW32
Essentially, in plain english, it means 'Windows on Windows within a 64-bit machine'. Each folder is indicating where the DLLs are located for applications it they wish to use them.
Here are two links with all the basic info you need:
MSDN File System Redirector
SysWow64 Explained
Hope this clears things up!
System32 is where Windows historically placed all 32bit DLLs, and System was for the 16bit DLLs. When microsoft created the 64 bit OS, everyone I know of expected the files to reside under System64, but Microsoft decided it made more sense to put 64bit files under System32. The only reasoning I have been able to find, is that they wanted everything that was 32bit to work in a 64bit Windows w/o having to change anything in the programs -- just recompile, and it's done. The way they solved this, so that 32bit applications could still run, was to create a 32bit windows subsystem called Windows32 On Windows64. As such, the acronym SysWOW64 was created for the System directory of the 32bit subsystem. The Sys is short for System, and WOW64 is short for Windows32OnWindows64.
Since windows 16 is already segregated from Windows 32, there was no need for a Windows 16 On Windows 64 equivalence. Within the 32bit subsystem, when a program goes to use files from the system32 directory, they actually get the files from the SysWOW64 directory. But the process is flawed.
It's a horrible design. And in my experience, I had to do a lot more changes for writing 64bit applications, that simply changing the System32 directory to read System64 would have been a very small change, and one that pre-compiler directives are intended to handle.
Other folks have already done a good job of explaining this ridiculus conundrum ... and I think Chris Hoffman did an even better job here: https://www.howtogeek.com/326509/whats-the-difference-between-the-system32-and-syswow64-folders-in-windows/
My two thoughts:
We all make stupid short-sighted mistakes in life. When Microsoft named their (at the time) Win32 DLL directory "System32", it made sense at the time ... they just didn't take into consideration what would happen if/when a 64-bit (or 128-bit) version of their OS got developed later - and the massive backward compatibility issue such a directory name would cause. Hindsight is always 20-20, so I can't really blame them (too much) for such a mistake. ...HOWEVER... When Microsoft did later develop their 64-bit operating system, even with the benefit of hindsight, why oh why would they make not only the exact same short-sighted mistake AGAIN but make it even worse by PURPOSEFULLY giving it such a misleading name?!? Shame on them!!! Why not AT LEAST actually name the directory "SysWin32OnWin64" to avoid confusion?!? And what happens when they eventually produce a 128-bit OS ... then where are they going to put their 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit DLLs?!?
All of this logic still seems completely flawed to me. On 32-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 32-bit DLLs; on 64-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 64-bit DLLs ... so that developers wouldn't have to make code changes, correct? The problem with this logic is that those developers are either now making 64-bit apps needing 64-bit DLLs or they're making 32-bit apps needing 32-bit DLLs ... either way, aren't they still screwed? I mean, if they're still making a 32-bit app, for it to now run on a 64-bit Windows, they'll now need to make a code change to find/reference the same ol' 32-bit DLL they used before (now located in SysWOW64). Or, if they're working on a 64-bit app, they're going to need to re-write their old app for the new OS anyway ... so a recompile/rebuild was going to be needed anyway!!!
Microsoft just hurts me sometimes.
I'm following the excellent tutorial by Malte Ahrens on how to create a OneNote add-in.
Initially I followed it step by step, making a few changes (just renaming the class, and using my own name and GUID in the assembly) info. As I'm using VS2012 and am not yet ready to hand-roll a WiX installer I manually copied over the built dll to the correct place and also created a registry file to make the requisite entries. I confirmed that they were all there, loaded up OneNote but no add-in, going to "mange COM addins" section I saw the following error:
Load Behavior: Not loaded. A runtime error occurred during the loading of the COM Add-in.
I spent some time debugging this but didn't get very far. So this afternoon I decided to start again but copy his code verbatim. I simply downloaded the example project, used the trial of Vdproj to Wix to create the installer and built everything.
I get the exact same error.
Why is this please? What does this mean and most importantly how do I debug the problem?
A few specifics about my environment and where it may differ from the original tutorial.
I am running Office 2013 AND it's 64bit. His tutorial is for 2010. This means when I loaded up the demo solution I had to remove the non-existent reference to the Onenote 14 Interop and add the v15 version.
In terms of registry entries they go to the right place, not the WOW6432 registry nodes. I doubly know this as if I load up OneNote and then refresh the HKCR registry node for the add-in, the LoadBehavior switches to 0x00000002, (disabled).
Other things that may be worth noting.
I have enabled OneNote logging and it's quiet on my issue.
There are 2 other posts on here with a seemingly similar problem (but Office 2010) here and here, neither got a response. The first guy had it loading once, but then had to manualy start it each time, mine never loads (and I've not signed my assembly) the second guy never got a response.
As I say, even knowing how to debug this further would be a great step forwards.
Edit:
I've gone back to debugging my own version, which is almost identical anyway as I'm not sure what the installer is actually doing and I think because it's a demo of the wix converter it's only allowing me to build for x86.
If I add OneNote.exe under "start external program" and run debug on my add-in, I see the following lines appear when I try and tick the add-in under "manage COM add-ins" within OneNote. I'm afraid I'm still pretty green at all this so I'm not sure what it means.
First-chance exception at 0x00007ffe4f86ab78 in ONENOTE.EXE: 0x800401FD: Object is not connected to server.
First-chance exception at 0x00007ffe4f86ab78 in ONENOTE.EXE: 0x800401FD: Object is not connected to server.
First-chance exception at 0x00007ffe4f86ab78 in ONENOTE.EXE: 0x800401FD: Object is not connected to server.
Also, since reading up more I think me simply copying my dll into the install folder program files\[manufacturer]\[application] (as I don't have an installer) was not enough. I've now executed this against my dll
PS C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319> .\RegAsm.exe
and it came back with
Microsoft .NET Framework Assembly Registration Utility version 4.0.30319.33440
for Microsoft .NET Framework version 4.0.30319.33440
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Types registered successfully
Is there anything else I should be doing to register the dll correctly?
Enable logging for OneNote 2013:
Create a file "EnableOneNote2013APILogging.reg"
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\15.0\OneNote\Options\Logging]
"EnableLogging"=dword:00000001
"EnableTextFileLogging"=dword:0000001
"ttidLogObjectModel"=dword:00000001
"ttidLogObjectModelAddins"=dword:00000001
Create a file "DisableOneNote2013APILogging.reg"
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\15.0\OneNote\Options\Logging]
"EnableLogging"=dword:00000000
"EnableTextFileLogging"=dword:0000000
"ttidLogObjectModel"=dword:00000000
"ttidLogObjectModelAddins"=dword:00000000
This is based on http://blogs.msdn.com/b/descapa/archive/2006/12/08/debugging-the-onenote-api-enable-logging.aspx but you need to add EnableTextFileLogging ;-).
The logfile is created in %temp%\OneNote.log
For OneNote 2010 change the path in the .reg files to \14.0\ instead of \15.0\
I have 32bit dll files and I need to register them on windows 7 x64,
I have tries the regsvr.exe file that exists in the folder c:\windows\syswow64
However, nothing happened with me, and I haven't got a successful message.
When I searched for my dlls in regedt , I haven't found it.
So, how can I solve that.
Regards,
Aya.
It's no different to doing it on 32-bit Windows.
It also doesn't matter which of the two regsvr32.exe versions you run: The 32-bit one is clever enough to call the 64-bit one if a 64-bit DLL is passed to it, and vice versa. (At least on Windows 7.)
If you're getting an error or the registration request doesn't return at all then the problem is likely to be with the registration function in the DLL (e.g. it's getting stuck in a long or endless operation or loop due to some other platform difference), or the DLL itself (e.g. some of its dependencies are missing).
I developped a vb6 program then I build an installation wizard with visual studio interdev.
I used "dependency walker" and "process explorer" to find out the missing DLLs but there is always a problem with :
IESHIMS.DLL
WER.DLL
MPR.DLL
These dlls shown by dependency walker.
And when installing the program on another machine I have these error messages :
uxtheme.dll failed to register
msdatsrc.tlb failed to register etc..
PS : no problem on a machine where visual studio is installed.
Any Idea to fix this issue?
Thanks
Dependency Walker is not an appropriate tool to troubleshoot VB6 dependencies. It works well enough for DLLs written in C or C++ that use implicit dependencies. Although it hasn't kept up with the times and has trouble with DLLs that are stored in the Windows side-by-side cache or are delay loaded. Delay loading is what generates the warnings on ieshims.dll et al.
VB6 uses COM, which loads DLLs dynamically with LoadLibrary(). You'll never see such a dependency back in Depends unless you use the Profile option. Such DLLs are found back through the registry, the reason you needed to write an installer and tinker with regsvr32.exe.
You have to be pretty careful when writing installers like that, VB6 is old and can depend on operating system components that have been updated many times since 1998. Like uxtheme.dll, an important operating system DLL that implements visual styles. Having your installer overwrite the existing one on the user's machine is, well, disastrous. Although it is probably protected by Windows through its File System Protection feature, something that got added as a counter-measure against broken installers.
Giving proper advice is here difficult beyond "do no harm". A commercial installer like InstallShield or Wise (which I liked back then) is the best way to avoid shooting off the customer's leg. Fairly sure they still support VB6 installs. Microsoft makes a pre-cooked installer available for VB6 that installs all the core vb6 runtime components. You can download it here.
You should ALWAYS double check and verify any dependancies that you think your application needs.
All the files you mentioned are system DLLs and MUST NOT be distributed.
For a VB6 application you need the basic runtimes, and any DLLs you explicitly reference/use if and only if you have permission from the authors of those DLLs and instructions on the correct procedure and location for installing them.
For the standard Microsoft provided OCX files, these normally just need to be copied to the system32 folder and registered.
See redist.txt in the root of your Visual Studio installation for more details.
I would like to know when do we need to place a file under
C:\Windows\System32 or C:\Windows\SysWOW64, on a 64-bits windows system.
I had two DLL's, one for 32-bit, one for 64-bit.
Logically, I thought I'd place the 32-bit DLL under C:\Windows\System32, and the 64-bit DLL under C:\Windows\SysWOW64.
To my surprise, it's the other way around! The 32-bit one goes into C:\Windows\SysWOW64, and the 64-bit DLL goes into C:\Windows\System32.
Very confusing stuff. What's the reason behind this?
I believe the intent was to rename System32, but so many applications hard-coded for that path, that it wasn't feasible to remove it.
SysWoW64 wasn't intended for the dlls of 64-bit systems, it's actually something like "Windows on Windows64", meaning the bits you need to run 32bit apps on a 64bit windows.
This article explains a bit:
Windows x64 has a directory System32 that contains 64-bit DLLs (sic!).
Thus native processes with a bitness of 64 find “their” DLLs where
they expect them: in the System32 folder. A second directory,
SysWOW64, contains the 32-bit DLLs. The file system redirector does
the magic of hiding the real System32 directory for 32-bit processes
and showing SysWOW64 under the name of System32.
If you're talking about an installer, you really should not hard-code the path to the system folder. Instead, let Windows take care of it for you based on whether or not your installer is running on the emulation layer.
I should add: You should not be putting your dll's into \system32\ anyway! Modify your code, modify your installer... find a home for your bits that is NOT anywhere under c:\windows\
For example, your installer puts your dlls into:
\program files\<your app dir>\
or
\program files\common files\<your app name>\
(Note: The way you actually do this is to use the environment var: %ProgramFiles% or
%ProgramFiles(x86)% to find where Program Files is.... you do not assume it is c:\program files\ ....)
and then sets a registry tag :
HKLM\software\<your app name>
-- dllLocation
The code that uses your dlls reads the registry, then dynamically links to the dlls in that location.
The above is the smart way to go.
You do not ever install your dlls, or third party dlls into \system32\ or \syswow64. If you have to statically load, you put your dlls in your exe dir (where they will be found). If you cannot predict the exe dir (e.g. some other exe is going to call your dll), you may have to put your dll dir into the search path (avoid this if at all poss!)
system32 and syswow64 are for Windows provided files... not for anyone elses files. The only reason folks got into the bad habit of putting stuff there is because it is always in the search path, and many apps/modules use static linking. (So, if you really get down to it, the real sin is static linking -- this is a sin in native code and managed code -- always always always dynamically link!)
Ran into the same issue and researched this for a few minutes.
I was taught to use Windows 3.1 and DOS, remember those days? Shortly after I worked with Macintosh computers strictly for some time, then began to sway back to Windows after buying a x64-bit machine.
There are actual reasons behind these changes (some would say historical significance), that are necessary for programmers to continue their work.
Most of the changes are mentioned above:
Program Files vs Program Files (x86)
In the beginning the 16/86bit files were written on, '86' Intel processors.
System32 really means System64 (on 64-bit Windows)
When developers first started working with Windows7, there were several compatibility issues where other applications where stored.
SysWOW64 really means SysWOW32
Essentially, in plain english, it means 'Windows on Windows within a 64-bit machine'. Each folder is indicating where the DLLs are located for applications it they wish to use them.
Here are two links with all the basic info you need:
MSDN File System Redirector
SysWow64 Explained
Hope this clears things up!
System32 is where Windows historically placed all 32bit DLLs, and System was for the 16bit DLLs. When microsoft created the 64 bit OS, everyone I know of expected the files to reside under System64, but Microsoft decided it made more sense to put 64bit files under System32. The only reasoning I have been able to find, is that they wanted everything that was 32bit to work in a 64bit Windows w/o having to change anything in the programs -- just recompile, and it's done. The way they solved this, so that 32bit applications could still run, was to create a 32bit windows subsystem called Windows32 On Windows64. As such, the acronym SysWOW64 was created for the System directory of the 32bit subsystem. The Sys is short for System, and WOW64 is short for Windows32OnWindows64.
Since windows 16 is already segregated from Windows 32, there was no need for a Windows 16 On Windows 64 equivalence. Within the 32bit subsystem, when a program goes to use files from the system32 directory, they actually get the files from the SysWOW64 directory. But the process is flawed.
It's a horrible design. And in my experience, I had to do a lot more changes for writing 64bit applications, that simply changing the System32 directory to read System64 would have been a very small change, and one that pre-compiler directives are intended to handle.
Other folks have already done a good job of explaining this ridiculus conundrum ... and I think Chris Hoffman did an even better job here: https://www.howtogeek.com/326509/whats-the-difference-between-the-system32-and-syswow64-folders-in-windows/
My two thoughts:
We all make stupid short-sighted mistakes in life. When Microsoft named their (at the time) Win32 DLL directory "System32", it made sense at the time ... they just didn't take into consideration what would happen if/when a 64-bit (or 128-bit) version of their OS got developed later - and the massive backward compatibility issue such a directory name would cause. Hindsight is always 20-20, so I can't really blame them (too much) for such a mistake. ...HOWEVER... When Microsoft did later develop their 64-bit operating system, even with the benefit of hindsight, why oh why would they make not only the exact same short-sighted mistake AGAIN but make it even worse by PURPOSEFULLY giving it such a misleading name?!? Shame on them!!! Why not AT LEAST actually name the directory "SysWin32OnWin64" to avoid confusion?!? And what happens when they eventually produce a 128-bit OS ... then where are they going to put their 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit DLLs?!?
All of this logic still seems completely flawed to me. On 32-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 32-bit DLLs; on 64-bit versions of Windows, System32 contains 64-bit DLLs ... so that developers wouldn't have to make code changes, correct? The problem with this logic is that those developers are either now making 64-bit apps needing 64-bit DLLs or they're making 32-bit apps needing 32-bit DLLs ... either way, aren't they still screwed? I mean, if they're still making a 32-bit app, for it to now run on a 64-bit Windows, they'll now need to make a code change to find/reference the same ol' 32-bit DLL they used before (now located in SysWOW64). Or, if they're working on a 64-bit app, they're going to need to re-write their old app for the new OS anyway ... so a recompile/rebuild was going to be needed anyway!!!
Microsoft just hurts me sometimes.