[naaloh]

I noticed that Visual C++ 2005 SP1 (file version 8.0.50727.762) and later Visual C++ 2005 SP1 ATL Security Update (file version 8.0.50727.4053) all have atl80.dll for ANSI operating systems and do install on Windows ME. However, Microsoft download pages do not list Windows 95, 98 or ME as a supported OS for those runtime packages, hence my question. Has anyone tried using those updated runtimes instead of older Visual C++ 2005, which still lists Windows 98, 98SE and ME as supported, on any of those operating systems? If yes, did it lead to any problems/errors?

[jumper]

Already in 98SESP3.3, so should work in ME as well.

What app do you run that needs atl80?

The only atl.dll on my SE machine is version 2.00.7274

[naaloh]

Quote

Already in 98SESP3.3, so should work in ME as well.

So there's an even newer version 8.0.50727.6195 of Visual C++ 2005 runtimes: Visual C++ 2005 SP1 MFC Security Update. But why didn't they include ATL80.DLL from this update into their "98 SE SP 3.4"? The post you point to lists ATL80.DLL as 8.0.50727.4053 while everything else is 8.0.50727.6195. Did they found some problems with ATL80.DLL v. 8.0.50727.6195?

jumper, on 12 August 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

What app do you run that needs atl80?

I don't know. Just wanted to have the most recent working runtimes just in case.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

ATL80.DLL v. 8.0.50727.6195 was overlooked, It will be in SP 3.5. Thank you very much!

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 12 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

[naaloh]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

ATL80.DLL v. 8.0.50727.6195 was overlooked, It will be in SP 3.5. Thank you very much!

Can you tell me how thoroughly your service pack is tested? I mean, should ATL80.DLL v. 8.0.50727.6195 cause any problems on Windows 98, how likely is it to be reported?

Although I don't use Windows 98, I could use your service pack as a reference regarding the most recent versions of dlls to work on Windows ME, unless it includes KernelEx, which I'm not planning to use.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

naaloh, on 13 August 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Can you tell me how thoroughly your service pack is tested? I mean, should ATL80.DLL v. 8.0.50727.6195 cause any problems on Windows 98, how likely is it to be reported?

Although I don't use Windows 98, I could use your service pack as a reference regarding the most recent versions of dlls to work on Windows ME, unless it includes KernelEx, which I'm not planning to use.

Its tested pretty thoroughly. We get a few people here and there that have some problems. We get them resolved immediately or at least try. Thats all I can tell you.

[naaloh]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 13 August 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Its tested pretty thoroughly. We get a few people here and there that have some problems. We get them resolved immediately or at least try. Thats all I can tell you.

What abot the updated runtimes of Visual C++ 2003 SP1 from Visual Studio 2003 SP1 MFC Security Update? Were they intentionally not included in your service pack or are there some problems with those updated files?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

naaloh, on 14 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

What about the updated runtimes of Visual C++ 2003 SP1 from Visual Studio 2003 SP1 MFC Security Update? Were they intentionally not included in your service pack or are there some problems with those updated files?

Anyone up for trying them? I'm feeling kinda lazy right now

[loblo]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 05 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

naaloh, on 14 August 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

What about the updated runtimes of Visual C++ 2003 SP1 from Visual Studio 2003 SP1 MFC Security Update? Were they intentionally not included in your service pack or are there some problems with those updated files?

Anyone up for trying them? I'm feeling kinda lazy right now

Looks like mfc71.dll at least is OK (so I guess the other ones are as well), I have briefly run a few programs that are dependent on it without any apparent issues.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

loblo, on 06 November 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

Looks like mfc71.dll at least is OK (so I guess the other ones are as well), I have briefly run a few programs that are dependent on it without any apparent issues.

Sorry for wasting your time. They are already included in the SP. I must have been super tired to miss this. This means I have all the latest runtimes that I'm aware of. No runtimes over 8.x will run on Win9.x without KernelEx I guess it doesn't hurt to triple check your work. 3.10 is coming soon to a computer near you. Thanks loblo.

[loblo]

No worries, it gave me the opportunity to upgrade those files who were not up to date on my own system, so no time wasted.