 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / General Topics / January 2006mscoree.dll
FWIW: Would like to share this with the NG, despite the risk of exposing myself to some *flak*: Knowing from experience, it to be safe, I have been using an old "Norton System Works 2002" CD to *only* run >Launch Utilities from CD>Fast and Safe and >NortonWinDoctor. On my last scan I found a missing "mscoree.dll" file, including the location. Have no idea why it was missing, but I downloaded it for free and after unzipping, put it in its proper place. It is not missing anymore. Harry. MSCOREE.DLL This file is part of Microsoft .NET (and therefore not included as part of Win Me) and the most common reason for the absence of mscoree.dll is if the Microsoft .NET Framework is not installed on the target computer. Applications and controls written for the .NET Framework require that it be installed on the computer on which the application or control runs. The .NET framework can be downloaded from the Windows Update site but is a pretty big download 20MB or so. Norton Futilities have always flagged this as an error which simply illustrates how little Symantec know about the area and Win Me specifically.  SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > FWIW: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Harry. Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or so). Therefore I took care of it. Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Harry. > MSCOREE.DLL > This file is part of Microsoft .NET (and therefore not included as part of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > Harry. > Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD concerned is the local dumpster. :-) SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way > my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to > have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or > so). Therefore I took care of it. > Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. > Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike, to destine it for the "local dumpster"? What if I found a buyer, if the price was right? I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job. Harry. > > Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. > > Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*. You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side. Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow his advice to aim for the local dumpster. Thanks Shane and Mike. Harry. > Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike, > to destine it for the "local dumpster"? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy. > > > Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out of arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose that's what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so bloated (and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely* useless. Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for one, though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But if you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is, on the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo, unnecessary nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the error is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small and don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send you them if required, though I doubt you will require them). WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW, imo, is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with a whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their system. Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the correct one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all components outright. Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For instance, you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can always go back and change to Standard. Shane > Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*. > You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>> Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your >>>> enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so. Just like inspecting an object under the microscope. And the approach has to be universal, know what I mean? You sort of *made my day* and my name even is *Harry*. Thanks. *Same as above*. > Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out of > arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose that's [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >>>> Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your > >>>> enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again! <vbg> Shane > That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so. > Just like inspecting an object under the microscope. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >> >>>> Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your >> >>>> enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk. Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until recently I had one of his versions (and a very early Symantec-labelled one!). Hard to believe I finally junked it all! I think I still have MS-DOS 6.22 on floppies (and DR-DOS 7.03 iirc), though I'm not sure why. Not only did I decide to get rid of LFN-unaware stuff for once and for all, I threw away Windows 95OS2! ...I feel like an OCD patient in remission... Shane > Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again! > <vbg> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >>> >>>> Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your >>> >>>> enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Hi Shane, I was also a Peter Norton and PCTools fan back in the 80s and early 90s. Talking of vintage I find I still have copies of DOS 4.01, 5 and 6 as well as 6.22 and am sure if I looked hard would also find 3.2. WFW3.1 and WFW3.11 as well as Win2, Win3, 3.1 and 3.11 but no Windows 1. Also a copy of MS Office 4.3. I really really really need to clear up some of my archives. :-) SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > btw, as Mike has noted before, Symantec didn't write, eg, Speed Disk. > Peter Norton was the originator and eventually got brought out. Until [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ...I feel like an OCD patient in remission... I *know* you have Win2.x - for very good reason! :) I also have a copy of Win3.1(something or other) here - not to mention DOS 6.something... and even a copy (if I can find it) of Qbasic from <who knows when?> which still runs happily on XP, running a little program I created for fun on a Dragon 64..... I could probably lay my hands on the single floppy that the CP/M for that PC came on, if I *really* searched! SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > Hi Shane, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> ...I feel like an OCD patient in remission... Ah yes! The Reversi championships! <vbg> Shane >I *know* you have Win2.x - for very good reason! > :) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> >>> ...I feel like an OCD patient in remission... Mike, I took a look through the one box of (20) floppies I still retain, last night. Apparently I kept DOS 5.00 as well. I kept ERDs for Win95 original and OS2. Suggestions as to 'Why?' on a postcard please! I still have a copy of WFW 3.11 on the hd here. Everything was on hd, duplicated on cd. It's the stacks of redundant cds that were the problem. I had a kind of fun getting everything to install from cd, or be copied to flat folders on the hd and install from there, just seeing how much quicker I could make it all go. I made a cd that would install DR-DOS 7.03, then MS-DOS 6.22, then WFW 3.11 - just had to start it from a DR-DOS boot disk and it autoran from there, then installed the best of the utilities. I guess it was the fun of automating, and as such a bit like building a train set then switching it on and just sitting there! I think it's my Scottish blood makes me rue having got rid of it all - and the English that makes me feel that no matter how much work I put in, it was *still* a good idea to ditch it! That cd was the genesis of my ultimate multi-boot volume - you could get Windows 2.x on too and put the whole lot beneath Win 95 and on top of *that*, NT 4.0! Finally I squeezed 98se in, out of curiosity at what point it just wouldn't work anymore (which point I didn't reach). And all 7 OSes went into one 2G volume. I think I had to write a boot up script to select between 95 or 98, but otherwise it was straight forward enough apart from the Boot sequences! But my video wouldn't work, ie I couldn't get more than 16 colours in WFW, and I couldn't go online with any of my last four modems, even in NT 4.0 and, as educational as it was that's all it was. The ironic thing is, before long hardware won't be 9x compatable either! Shane > Hi Shane, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> ...I feel like an OCD patient in remission... And here I thought to be the only one having a problem with that, Shane <lol> Harry. > Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again! > <vbg> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > >> >>>> Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your > >> >>>> enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings <g>. Harry, You have the option of selecting to *Ignore* the error. Consider, if you were supposed to correct every error identified, there would be no point in an option to ignore. However, while Symantec state that the user should only hit *Repair* if he/she understands what it entails, a *Repair All* button is provided with which the trusting can 'correct' potentially hundreds of errors in the blink of an eye. Most Norton users defend Utilities/Systemworks by the seriously-flawed reasoning that because it hasn't caused them problems it proves there aren't any. I run NU2000, have done for many years (though fewer than 7). I think Speed Disk is the best defragger for 9x, but a no. of components should not be installed (such as Norton Optimisation Wizard, NSD and others). You know, I try to be balanced. I have numerous drives and move stuff about a lot, and doing such it is very, very easy to demonstrate that WinDoctor is comparatively stupid and will, more-often-than-not, choose the wrong executable to point a shortcut at. The consequence of this is that when you hit Repair/Repair All without first determining the proposed solution, all sorts of commands, rather than fail to work will execute some other potentially disastrous program or routine. I tested Utilities/Systemworks 2001 and 2002, specifically to see if this failing had been corrected and there was no improvement whatsoever (at least the 'Repair All' button could have been removed - but do that and bang goes the wishful-thinking customer base, ie the majority). The only reason people continue to trust NU/NSW is recommendations by non-experts who never test it sufficiently to discover the errors, or who blame those it produces on something else (probably Windows, probably when they discover it several months later). It is perfectly good for the user who will not have it 'repair' anything he/she does not understand. IOW it's a program for experts, not novices - unfortunately it's aimed at novices as a one-button cure-all. I'm not aware of a really big software house that cares about the quality of the product rather than about selling to the majority, ie the rubes. If they just stick to the English-speaking market the rewards are astronomical. How much power would a company have selling to every person on the planet? Well, that's really what they want to get as near to as poss. Hmm, I seem to be talking about some other company now... Shane > FWIW: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Harry. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.