PDA

View Full Version : Miscellaneous Posts



NewsArchive
05-01-1997, 12:00 AM
But the install still won't work unless stdole2.tlb gets registered, which
I haven't figured out how to do, yet.

Since it's a Type Library, it can't self-register itself.

Palle Møller Pedersen <pallem@dk-online.dk> wrote in article
<33660E6D.5D5@dk-online.dk>...
> Stuart Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I have just purchased InstallShield Express Pro 1.11a, and have just
> > discovered that it's not configured to work with VB5; which is what I
> > purchased it for.
> >
> > Is there an update?
> >
> > Stuart.
>
> You can use the InstallShield 1.1x with VB 5 the following way:
>
> 1) Use the VB5 Install Wizard to make an installation for your program.
> Specify it to make an dependency file
>
> 2) Use this dependency file to see which files you have to add to your
> IS Express setup, and which you can remove. It works.
>
> I had to add:
> msvbvm50.dll
> stdole2.tbl
> asycfilt.dll
> comcat.dll
>
> Palle M. Pedersen, neuropsychologist
> The Aphasia Computer Project, Copenhagen
> pallem@dk-online.dk
>

NewsArchive
05-03-1997, 12:00 AM
Aaron A. Anderson wrote:
>
> But the install still won't work unless stdole2.tlb gets registered, which
> I haven't figured out how to do, yet.
>

My installation of a VB5 compiled program does work, however.
To be sure I set up a new harddisk with a new Win 95 (OEM2)
and no other programs installed.
Unless something in that Windows registers stdole2.tbl
(IE 3.0 maybe?), then the installation should work universally.
Is it really necessary for a .tbl to register?

Yours,
Palle Møller Pedersen

NewsArchive
05-04-1997, 12:00 AM
Aaron A. Anderson wrote:
>
> But the install still won't work unless stdole2.tlb gets registered, which
> I haven't figured out how to do, yet.
>
I have now reformatted the harddisk and installed the original
Windows 95 (not OEM2) and no other programs.
The IXPro installation of my VB5 program still works fine, so
it must be safe to distribute.

Palle M. Pedersen

NewsArchive
01-14-1998, 01:00 AM
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 00:49:22 -0500, "Chad Hegerty" <hegertyc@ee.net> wrote:
>identify what the problem might be, but make sure the path for the system
>group is $SYSTEM (I am not sure if this is the proper name). The install
>program will determine the users SYSTEM directory and work correctly.

<WINSYSDIR> :)


Stefan
ellipse data systems

NewsArchive
02-17-1998, 01:00 AM
Stefan,

I plan to take a look at PackageForTheWeb.

The install I am doing is more of an system update. I need to install a
new report engine runtime on my client's pc for my VB apps.

If possible, I would like to provide the prompt for the installation
directy, but if I cannot, then I will hardcode the directory. I only need
to update an existing .INI file to reflect the directory the new version
was installed in.

Thanks for you response.

John Ward

P.S. To email me, remove the 'X' from my email address, NO SPAMERS PLEASE!


Stefan Paetow <owner@ellipse-data.com> wrote:
> Uncheck the "Select Program Folder" option in the "Dialog Boxes"
checkmark
> option in Express. Then make sure the name is empty. I haven't ever had
> this requirement.
>
> You might however take a look at PackageForTheWeb which can prompt for a
> destination directory, but it simply unpacks the runtime in that
directory.
> No registry icons/entries are made. Is that what you want?
>
> Stefan
> ellipse data systems
>

NewsArchive
08-07-1998, 12:00 AM
Thanks for the reply. However, I found the problem wasn't in the lack of
an associated viewer for the graphics file format. I discovered the
problem was due to a missing Asycfilt.dll file on the target machine.
This problem has me mystified, as this mising file is not referred to
anywhere in the application, nor is it listed as a dependent file of any
of the other dlls or ocxs. Easy fix, though, just include the file in
the install..
--
Rod C--
Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada

>>There is no truth. There is no reality. There is no consistency. There
are no absolute statements.<<
The preceding humor inserted by QuipSig
http://www.enc.yk.net/quipsig/

http://yos.yknet.yk.ca/ YukonNet Operating Society

NewsArchive
09-28-1998, 12:00 AM
> You can either compile your applications without runtime support, which
> will bloat your application, but will include the VCL within, or look in
> the project options and see which VCL packages (BPL's) your application
> needs. Then include those in your ISX project. These need to be placed
into
> the WINSYSDIR, and also have to be marked as selfregistering.

Thanks. I compiled without the runtime packages. I think in the long run
for my clients that would actually use the smallest amount of space.

I have had another problem in installing the BDE, though. I get an error
during install complaining about merging the config files or something.
Then, after the install completes, I cannot run the BDE. I get an error:

"Exception EDBEngineError in module BDEAdmin.exe at 00054fa2. An error
occurred while trying to initialize the Borland Database Engine (Error
$3E06)."

I believe this error has to do with language settings - but I don't know
what. I read the FAQs, etc. on your web site about merging the
configuration files, but couldn't find my solution. I tried to run my
application (I knew it would fail somewhere), and found it died within
idapi32.dll.

Any suggestions?

Jon

NewsArchive
09-28-1998, 12:00 AM
On 28 Sep 98 17:07:04 GMT, "Jon Berndt" <jsb@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>configuration files, but couldn't find my solution. I tried to run my
>application (I knew it would fail somewhere), and found it died within
>idapi32.dll.

Which version of the BDE are you running? If you are using BDE 5.0, please
download the BCB3 fix for BDE 5.0 and Express for BCB3 from
http://www.tdag.org/ - Instructions are pretty simple.

If you are using BDE 4.51, then you should not have a problem. Make sure
that you are using the FULL BDE installation.

Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
09-28-1998, 12:00 AM
> Which version of the BDE are you running? If you are using BDE 5.0,
please
> download the BCB3 fix for BDE 5.0 and Express for BCB3 from
> http://www.tdag.org/ - Instructions are pretty simple.
>
> If you are using BDE 4.51, then you should not have a problem. Make sure
> that you are using the FULL BDE installation.


Would _not_ doing the above possibly cause an EInvalidOp exception to occur
when I try to execute my freshly installed program?

Jon

NewsArchive
09-28-1998, 12:00 AM
I have been trying to get ISX for BCBuilder to work with BDE 5.0 using the
zip archive d/l'ed from the TDAG site as advised. I have noticed that after
I complete step 5 and look at step 6 (" ... one contains a single CNF file
(IDAPI.CNF) ... "), in my BDE/IDAPI CNF Files group I have IDAPI32.CNF - NOT
IDAPI.CNF. Is this a problem? When I did step 3 I noticed that I already had
both IDAPI and IDAPI32 CNF files.

What should I do?

Jon

NewsArchive
09-29-1998, 12:00 AM
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:34:00 -0500, "Jon S. Berndt" <jsb@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>I complete step 5 and look at step 6 (" ... one contains a single CNF file
>(IDAPI.CNF) ... "), in my BDE/IDAPI CNF Files group I have IDAPI32.CNF - NOT
>IDAPI.CNF. Is this a problem? When I did step 3 I noticed that I already had
>both IDAPI and IDAPI32 CNF files.

Include both files (IDAPI.CNF and IDAPI32.CNF) in that group.

Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-02-1998, 12:00 AM
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:00:25 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
wrote:
>I don't see anywhere to add a DSN in the ODBC it doesn't give me any options
>to add a DSN connection, that I can chose from.

The ODBC Wizard has 5 steps. In Step 3 you can select the existing DSN that
is installed on YOUR own system that you want installed on the target
system.

In Step 4 you can specify whether it is a User or System DSN and you can
also modify the DSN properties.

Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-02-1998, 12:00 AM
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:51:49 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
wrote:
>I don't know where the user will install the MDB files. I want to leave
>that up to them. It may be on a remote computer.

You will then be able to use the <INSTALLDIR> parameter (e.g. the user
installs to "C:\Thisdir" and <INSTALLDIR> is set to that path).

To specify any directories below the INSTALLDIR, follow the standard DOS
format of "<INSTALLDIR>\Directory\Subdirectory".


Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-03-1998, 12:00 AM
The DSNs only show up if they are in the UserDSN section of the ODBC. I
have tested this by just typing in a DSN in the User section and entering a
DSNName, Description, and a Source, and it now shows up in Step 3. How can
I set it up to be a System DSN in Step 4?

-Eric


InstallShield Software Corporation wrote in message
<36151c77.4036714@news.installshield.com>...
>On Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:00:25 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
>wrote:
>>I don't see anywhere to add a DSN in the ODBC it doesn't give me any
options
>>to add a DSN connection, that I can chose from.
>
>The ODBC Wizard has 5 steps. In Step 3 you can select the existing DSN that
>is installed on YOUR own system that you want installed on the target
>system.
>
>In Step 4 you can specify whether it is a User or System DSN and you can
>also modify the DSN properties.
>
>Stefan Paetow
>InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-05-1998, 12:00 AM
On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:35:42 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
wrote:
>have tested this by just typing in a DSN in the User section and entering a
>DSNName, Description, and a Source, and it now shows up in Step 3. How can
>I set it up to be a System DSN in Step 4?

That is correct. Only User DSNs show up. But in Step 4 at the bottom of the
dialog you have something called "Datasource type". Select System. It will
install your DSN as a System DSN.


Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-05-1998, 12:00 AM
I am using InstallShield Express 2.01 is the Datasource type in a newer
version? All it shows in Step 4 is a drop down box with what ever is
checked from step 3 and a text box with the properties of the DSN. It
doesn't display anywhere a datasource type box.

Thanks,

-Eric

InstallShield Software Corporation wrote in message
<3618b404.94053501@news.installshield.com>...
>On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 22:35:42 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
>wrote:
>>have tested this by just typing in a DSN in the User section and entering
a
>>DSNName, Description, and a Source, and it now shows up in Step 3. How
can
>>I set it up to be a System DSN in Step 4?
>
>That is correct. Only User DSNs show up. But in Step 4 at the bottom of the
>dialog you have something called "Datasource type". Select System. It will
>install your DSN as a System DSN.
>
>
>Stefan Paetow
>InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-05-1998, 12:00 AM
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:46:19 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
wrote:
>I am using InstallShield Express 2.01 is the Datasource type in a newer
>version? All it shows in Step 4 is a drop down box with what ever is
>checked from step 3 and a text box with the properties of the DSN. It
>doesn't display anywhere a datasource type box.

Please send me a screen shot of your Step 4. If you are a registered user
of InstallShield Express 2.01 (but NOT a Custom Edition), please upgrade to
Express 2.03.

Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
10-05-1998, 12:00 AM
I will send you the screen capture. I also have the info for upgrading to
2.03 had problems downloading today going to try again tonight.

-Eric

InstallShield Software Corporation wrote in message
<36192b16.124535602@news.installshield.com>...
>On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:46:19 -0400, "Eric Renken" <ericrenken@msn.com>
>wrote:
>>I am using InstallShield Express 2.01 is the Datasource type in a newer
>>version? All it shows in Step 4 is a drop down box with what ever is
>>checked from step 3 and a text box with the properties of the DSN. It
>>doesn't display anywhere a datasource type box.
>
>Please send me a screen shot of your Step 4. If you are a registered user
>of InstallShield Express 2.01 (but NOT a Custom Edition), please upgrade to
>Express 2.03.
>
>Stefan Paetow
>InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
01-01-1999, 01:00 AM
Dear ALL!,

Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield removed it from their
servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now reposting but surely
this post will not live long either. If you see this message and happen to
feel either way about this issue please respond through e-mail & newsgroup.

TO INSTALLSHIELD : THIS IS NOT THE ONLY FORUM THESE MESSAGES CAN BE POSTED
AND REMOVING THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR SERVER DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM AT ALL
SO PLEASE BE FAIR AND LET YOUR CUSTOMERS RAISE THEIR CONCERNS. THANK YOU.

Kerem Kirkpinar

Kerem Kirkpinar wrote in message ...
>Dear All,
>
>I would like to publicly vent frustration at InstallShield's upgrade policy
>for ISX 2.11 for existing 2.x customers and see if anybody else feels the
>same way.
>
>Like many of you, I bought ISX when it was still v2.0 and followed through
>bug fixes .1 / .2 / .3 & .4 and ended up with version 2.04. Now IS has
>released 2.11 which they want to charge me $145 for. The following is their
>justification:
>
>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
>============================
>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
>Enhanced objects: Visual dBase 7 and Borland C++ Builder 3 added.
>Command Line Support:....
>Create multiple language builds...
>Delphi 4 Support:....
>BDE Object Support:...
>MS-Wheel Mouse Support
>Toggle self-registration property on or off.
>Target file groups for specific operating systems
>Microsoft Access driver added
>Never Overwrite Files option
>
>Actually if this list was compiled from v2.04 to v2.11 then the outcome
>would be as follows (give or take a few mistakes :-)
>
>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
>============================
>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
>Command Line Support:....
>
>I am a VB user and now I have VB6 so while I don;t care too much about the
>command line support I really want the VB6 support as well as the numerous
>bug fixes that are left unsaid between 2.04 and 2.11.
>
>Clearly this is a lame attempt on InstallShield's part at banking on people
>moving to VB6 from VB5 and I don't like it. The product functionality has
>not changed significantly other than it's ability to correctly determine
VB6
>files required for an install set so I can't see the reasoning behing
>calling 2.11 a major upgrade and charging for it.
>
>I would be happy to hear what you think and intend to do. I am hoping to
get
>the message accross to InstallShield so that they change their policy on
>this one and as always, numbers speak. So, PLEASE MAKE YOURSELVES HEARD.
>
>Best Regards & Happy New Year
>
>Kerem Kirkpinar
>NimbleFeet Technologies
>www.NimbleFeet.com
>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-04-1999, 01:00 AM

NewsArchive
01-04-1999, 01:00 AM
Dear Kerem Kirkpinar,

Maybe you should ask a question. I'm not sure what your are getting
at! My company has decided to stay with version 2.04 since it does
what we need.

I do not see any question in your message? And most newsgroups HATE
"cross-posting!" And will usually delete them! This is not uncommon
practice.

As for the $145 charge for the new version. It is totally within
their rights to do so!!! Unless they have a contract in their manuals
saying all users will get UNLIMITED upgrades for as long as we both
shall LIVE. I don't remember that one...

Thanks,
James Kosin

Kerem Kirkpinar wrote in message
<368c293a.0@news.installshield.com>...
|Dear ALL!,
|
|Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield removed it from
their
|servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now reposting but
surely
|this post will not live long either. If you see this message and
happen to
|feel either way about this issue please respond through e-mail &
newsgroup.
|
|TO INSTALLSHIELD : THIS IS NOT THE ONLY FORUM THESE MESSAGES CAN BE
POSTED
|AND REMOVING THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR SERVER DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM
AT ALL
|SO PLEASE BE FAIR AND LET YOUR CUSTOMERS RAISE THEIR CONCERNS. THANK
YOU.
|
|Kerem Kirkpinar
|
|Kerem Kirkpinar wrote in message ...
|>Dear All,
|>
|>I would like to publicly vent frustration at InstallShield's upgrade
policy
|>for ISX 2.11 for existing 2.x customers and see if anybody else
feels the
|>same way.
|>
|>Like many of you, I bought ISX when it was still v2.0 and followed
through
|>bug fixes .1 / .2 / .3 & .4 and ended up with version 2.04. Now IS
has
|>released 2.11 which they want to charge me $145 for. The following
is their
|>justification:
|>
|>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
|>============================
|>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
|>Enhanced objects: Visual dBase 7 and Borland C++ Builder 3 added.
|>Command Line Support:....
|>Create multiple language builds...
|>Delphi 4 Support:....
|>BDE Object Support:...
|>MS-Wheel Mouse Support
|>Toggle self-registration property on or off.
|>Target file groups for specific operating systems
|>Microsoft Access driver added
|>Never Overwrite Files option
|>
|>Actually if this list was compiled from v2.04 to v2.11 then the
outcome
|>would be as follows (give or take a few mistakes :-)
|>
|>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
|>============================
|>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
|>Command Line Support:....
|>
|>I am a VB user and now I have VB6 so while I don;t care too much
about the
|>command line support I really want the VB6 support as well as the
numerous
|>bug fixes that are left unsaid between 2.04 and 2.11.
|>
|>Clearly this is a lame attempt on InstallShield's part at banking on
people
|>moving to VB6 from VB5 and I don't like it. The product
functionality has
|>not changed significantly other than it's ability to correctly
determine
|VB6
|>files required for an install set so I can't see the reasoning
behing
|>calling 2.11 a major upgrade and charging for it.
|>
|>I would be happy to hear what you think and intend to do. I am
hoping to
|get
|>the message accross to InstallShield so that they change their
policy on
|>this one and as always, numbers speak. So, PLEASE MAKE YOURSELVES
HEARD.
|>
|>Best Regards & Happy New Year
|>
|>Kerem Kirkpinar
|>NimbleFeet Technologies
|>www.NimbleFeet.com
|>
|>
|>
|
|

NewsArchive
01-04-1999, 01:00 AM
Kerem, thanks for your input. I would like to respond to a couple items
in your posting.

1) You state your posting was removed by InstallShield. I checked
with our systems group (they're the only ones who remove postings) and
no requests or removals were made or fulfilled last week. These are
public sites and we respect your freedom of expression. InstallShield
does reserve the right to remove inappropriate postings at our
discretion, but yours was certainly valid.

2) You are correct about the additional features added between 2.04
and 2.1. There was a great deal of interest in the command line
feature, it was a close second to the request for VB6 support. We feel
they are both significant features. Also, as you said, versions 2.01,
2.02, 2.03, and 2.04 were maintenance releases (as opposed to an upgrade
release), but a number of new features were added.

3) InstallShield does welcome and value your input. We use these
newsgroups regularly as one way to understand how our products and
marketing are performing. Please continue to communicate with us!

*******************************
Andy Mallinger
Senior Product Manager
InstallShield Software Corp.
AndyM@InstallShield.com <mailto:AndyM@InstallShield.com>
847-413-2892


-----Original Message-----
From: Kerem Kirkpinar [mailto:kerem@nimblefeet.com]
Posted At: Thursday, December 31, 1998 7:33 PM
Posted To: vb
Conversation: Upg to ISX 2.11 from 2.04 at $145 / NOT!
Subject: Re: Upg to ISX 2.11 from 2.04 at $145 /
NOT!

Dear ALL!,

Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield
removed it from their
servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now
reposting but surely
this post will not live long either. If you see this
message and happen to
feel either way about this issue please respond through
e-mail & newsgroup.

TO INSTALLSHIELD : THIS IS NOT THE ONLY FORUM THESE
MESSAGES CAN BE POSTED
AND REMOVING THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR SERVER DOES NOT SOLVE
THE PROBLEM AT ALL
SO PLEASE BE FAIR AND LET YOUR CUSTOMERS RAISE THEIR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU.

Kerem Kirkpinar

Kerem Kirkpinar wrote in message ...
>Dear All,
>
>I would like to publicly vent frustration at
InstallShield's upgrade policy
>for ISX 2.11 for existing 2.x customers and see if
anybody else feels the
>same way.
>
>Like many of you, I bought ISX when it was still v2.0
and followed through
>bug fixes .1 / .2 / .3 & .4 and ended up with version
2.04. Now IS has
>released 2.11 which they want to charge me $145 for.
The following is their
>justification:
>
>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
>============================
>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
>Enhanced objects: Visual dBase 7 and Borland C++
Builder 3 added.
>Command Line Support:....
>Create multiple language builds...
>Delphi 4 Support:....
>BDE Object Support:...
>MS-Wheel Mouse Support
>Toggle self-registration property on or off.
>Target file groups for specific operating systems
>Microsoft Access driver added
>Never Overwrite Files option
>
>Actually if this list was compiled from v2.04 to v2.11
then the outcome
>would be as follows (give or take a few mistakes :-)
>
>New since InstallShield Express 2.0
>============================
>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
>Command Line Support:....
>
>I am a VB user and now I have VB6 so while I don;t care
too much about the
>command line support I really want the VB6 support as
well as the numerous
>bug fixes that are left unsaid between 2.04 and 2.11.
>
>Clearly this is a lame attempt on InstallShield's part
at banking on people
>moving to VB6 from VB5 and I don't like it. The product
functionality has
>not changed significantly other than it's ability to
correctly determine
VB6
>files required for an install set so I can't see the
reasoning behing
>calling 2.11 a major upgrade and charging for it.
>
>I would be happy to hear what you think and intend to
do. I am hoping to
get
>the message accross to InstallShield so that they
change their policy on
>this one and as always, numbers speak. So, PLEASE MAKE
YOURSELVES HEARD.
>
>Best Regards & Happy New Year
>
>Kerem Kirkpinar
>NimbleFeet Technologies
>www.NimbleFeet.com
>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-05-1999, 01:00 AM
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:33:10 +0800, "Kerem Kirkpinar" <kerem@nimblefeet.com>
wrote:
>Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield removed it from their
>servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now reposting but surely

I do not recall this message. Since I am basically the only one checking
the newsgroups currently, I doubt that we removed this message.

>>Actually if this list was compiled from v2.04 to v2.11 then the outcome
>>would be as follows (give or take a few mistakes :-)

Please note:

The feature list you see was from Express 2.0 to Express 2.1. Express 2.01,
2.02, 2.03 and 2.04 added features as they went along to add support like
Delphi 4 because those were supported in Custom Editions.

>>Visual Basic 6 Support: ....
>>Command Line Support:....

Incorrect. The list you mentioned is the correct one. Since you upgraded
through all the Maintenance Releases, you may have received a lot of added
features, which we did not charge for.

>>Clearly this is a lame attempt on InstallShield's part at banking on people
>>moving to VB6 from VB5 and I don't like it. The product functionality has
>>not changed significantly other than it's ability to correctly determine

It is not a lame attempt. It has always been our policy to charge for a
major version upgrade.

However, I have let the CEO know of your concern.

Also, please try NOT to crosspost to every Express newsgroup. This issue
applies to either VB or the General group.

Thank you.

Stefan Paetow
InstallShield Software Corp.

NewsArchive
01-05-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi,

NOTE: The following information is based upon that provided by the
following Microsoft's web-site information:

www.microsoft.com/com/dcom/dcom1_2/relnotes.asp
www.microsoft.com/msdn/news/feature/datajul98/redistmdac.htm
Microsoft KB article Q190773


As far as I can tell from reading Microsoft's information on their
website, all of their data access technologies involve DCOM now. In
addition, their data access technologies all seem to work interact and work
together. To the best of my knowledge, to properly install the latest
version of ADO, you also need to have DCOM and the MDAC (Microsoft Data
Access Components.... basically ODBC, ADO, RDS, and OLE DB all rolled into
one) package installed (ie. this information is found in Microsoft KB
articles Q190773 - "INFO: ODBC/OLE DB/ADO/RDS Are Inter-Dependent for MDAC
2.0").

As far as I understand it, NT machines already have DCOM present on
them, but WIN 95 machines do not. As a result, you would need to install
DCOM when you are installing to WIN 95 machines. As for MDAC, I have played
with Microsoft's installer for a while and it seems to do a lot of things
behind the scenes other than simply installing and registering files (ie.
there seemed to be several batch files that were run, etc.). As a result,
my best suggestion would be to use Microsoft's MDAC installation package to
install MDAC. As Stephanie mentioned, you can run it from your Express
installation as an extension and can give it parameters to make it install
silently. The minimum MDAC installation package (ie. which simply installs
the core files for the MDAC technologies) is currently called MDAC_MIN.EXE
and is found on the download page at www.microsoft.com/data . There is
further information about the command-line parameters that can be passed to
it available in Microsoft's KB article Q192009).

I hope this information helps you out further. In addition, if you have
any information on this that I might not already have been able to determine
from Microsoft's white-papers, I would love to know the new information.

Sincerely,

Bill
InstallShield Developer Support
Stephanie Stowe <stephanie@6degrees.comnospam> wrote in message
36922f58.0@news.installshield.com...
>
>Matt Gould wrote in message <36615ae2.0@news.installshield.com>...
>>Howdy.
>>
>>I have been working on a VB 5.0 app that uses ADO. (Actually, two crucial
>>files: an .exe that contains the UI stuff and a .dll that accesses data.)
>>I'm almost ready to do an install and have used ISX in the past. I just
>>ordered the 2.11 upgrade/service release (whatever).
>>
>>My questions is this: how do I get ADO to work on the target machine.
>>
>>I have been reviewing the newsgroup postings here and have done a few
>>searches of the archive someone posted a link to and have determined the
>>following: (1) ADO requires DCOM to be installed on the target machine;
>
>Only for Win95 installations, I think (not NT)
>
>(2)
>>ISX v.2.04 doesn't take care of the DCOM installation (2.11 might);
>I had my customer install it separately since it needs to reboot before ADO
>install will work. Not a viable option with a shrinkwrapped product....
>
>(3) the >ISX Knowledge Base contains nothing related to ADO even though ADO
>is touted
>>by Microsoft as the best data access technology and has been available for
>>several months now;
>
>I plopped the ADO distribution exe in express extensions and ran it quiet
>(/Q)
>
>(4) Knowledge Base article Q102380 (which is apparently
>>the "White Paper" mentioned in some September posts) contains nothing
about
>>ADO; and (5) I'm pretty much on my own as far as ensuring that all of the
>>files needed by the target machine are included in the setup and that they
>>are included in the proper order.
>
>
>>I would appreciate any help anyone can give. Thanks in advance.
>
>Not very helpful, but the best I can do. :)
>
>>
>>Matt Gould
>>Cimarron Solutions
>>
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-07-1999, 01:00 AM
Hello Stefan,

>>Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield removed it from their
>>servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now reposting but surely
>I do not recall this message. Since I am basically the only one checking
>the newsgroups currently, I doubt that we removed this message.


The original message is there. In my cache. So Kerem posted it for sure.
These are technical discussion groups, and non-technical stuff has been
deleted before. So maybe this happend to his posting, too.

Stefan Krueger
Independent Setup Consultant

// InstallSite - Resources for setup developers
// http://www.installsite.org (primary site - USA) <-- NEW !!!
// http://installsite.sw.com.sg (mirror site - Singapore)

My reply-to address is invalid to avoid spam.
If you are looking for individual assistance, like e-mail support,
please mail to contract@installsite.org for support options.

NewsArchive
01-10-1999, 01:00 AM
Stefan,

Thanks for this confirmation. I was almost starting to believe that I was
imagining things. I probably owe IS an apology for the accusation of posting
removal. I guess it was some sort of a technical glitch that ate my
message. I also apologize for posting on so many newsgroups but this was
simply because I did not know which one was the most appropriate so I chose
the safe way! Anyways, let's move on.

In real terms, I received two responses to my original posting soliciting
opinions from fellow ISX users on the upgrade pricing policy for ISX 2.04 to
2.11. One was backing my case and one indicating happiness stating with 2.04
(oh by the way I may not be a native English speaker but I guess the
question in my note was quite clear). This creates the following situation.
%66 of the user community who has chosen to speak up is not happy with $145
upgrades and is hoping to get 2.11 free while %33 is also unhappy with the
price but is happy staying with 2.04. Hmmm, unless the rest speaks up this
will be the statistics that go down the history along with my copy of ISX
2.04.

For the record, I refuse to pay %145 upgrade fee for a product I purchased
at $217 around 10 months ago. My reason for the upgrade is to stay
compatible with my recent Visual Studio upgrade which was priced around %50
of the full purchase price and guess how much improvement was in there to
justify the %50 upgrade fee which I happily paid. I have now decided to look
at the competition and find a product which satisfies my simple needs
without the need to pay $$$ every year.

IS states that they did so much other than the bug fixes between 2.0 and
2.11 and thus they deserve the asking price. However in real business terms
what benefit are they giving you when they add support for platforms you
never use? I bought the product because it was simple, well focused and
gave me what I needed. It was then improved to cater for other languages as
well. Great! All the other developers using those other platforms bought it
and thus IS's work resulted in expanded market share and further sales
possibilities. So I really don't understand why I have to pay for things
that give me no benefit at all. Anyways I can go on forever but the truth is
probably the time I spent writing these notes and on the phone with IS
already is worth over $145 so I will now stop.

PS for VB6 users who don't want to pay $145. Simply run the packaging &
deployment wizard over your project and generate a dependency report and go
over to ISX 2.04 and manually add all the VB6 files that ISX 2.04 misses.
Presto. You CAN distribute VB6 apps with ISX 2.04.

Good luck with IS & ISX.
Kerem Kirkpinar

Stefan Krüger <@> wrote in message <3694d374.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Hello Stefan,
>
>>>Yesterday I posted this message and InstallShield removed it from their
>>>servers and chose not to answer me at all. I am now reposting but surely
>>I do not recall this message. Since I am basically the only one checking
>>the newsgroups currently, I doubt that we removed this message.
>
>
>The original message is there. In my cache. So Kerem posted it for sure.
>These are technical discussion groups, and non-technical stuff has been
>deleted before. So maybe this happend to his posting, too.
>
>Stefan Krueger
>Independent Setup Consultant
>
>// InstallSite - Resources for setup developers
>// http://www.installsite.org (primary site - USA) <-- NEW !!!
>// http://installsite.sw.com.sg (mirror site - Singapore)
>
>My reply-to address is invalid to avoid spam.
>If you are looking for individual assistance, like e-mail support,
>please mail to contract@installsite.org for support options.
>
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-15-1999, 01:00 AM
DI Mandl Alexander wrote:
>
> I agree completely with your mail.
>
> I started with IS 2.02 which could only be called a beta version not a final
> release.
> If we deploy that buggy versions as InstallShield does, our customers would kill
> us.
>
> Greatings from Austria!


Their upgrade policy is the worst that I have ever seen... but you
should have known that coming in...

Bye,

Lynn

NewsArchive
01-17-1999, 01:00 AM
how would I have known this ahead of time? between versions 2 and 2.04
users were not expected to pay anything!

I fully recognize the validity of paying for a 1.X -> 2.X upgrade, but not
for a 2.x->2.Y upgrade.

Ofer.


Lynn Morrison wrote in message <36A00892.AF11822E@whisp.com>...
>DI Mandl Alexander wrote:
>>
>> I agree completely with your mail.
>>
>> I started with IS 2.02 which could only be called a beta version not a
final
>> release.
>> If we deploy that buggy versions as InstallShield does, our customers
would kill
>> us.
>>
>> Greatings from Austria!
>
>
> Their upgrade policy is the worst that I have ever seen... but you
>should have known that coming in...
>
>Bye,
>
>Lynn

NewsArchive
01-18-1999, 01:00 AM
One observation:

There are people currently using Installshield 3.0 (Which upgrades to
Installshield 5.5

Maybe they would have called it InstallShield Express 3.0 if it didn't
get confusing with a different program. However, I don't feel the changes
warrant a "Major" version change. I didn't feel that they should charge
for the upgrade. I DID buy the upgrade because I had been pestering
them for a command line build. I also bought Professional 5.5.

I really think they shouldn't have called ALL of their installation
software "InstallShield". Thank goodness they didn't use "InstallShield"
for the name of their internet tools (InstallFromTheWeb and
PackageForWeb).

To summarize: I don't agree with their upgrade policy...but live with it
or use a different installation utility.

Ofer LaOr wrote:

> how would I have known this ahead of time? between versions 2 and 2.04
> users were not expected to pay anything!
>
> I fully recognize the validity of paying for a 1.X -> 2.X upgrade, but not
> for a 2.x->2.Y upgrade.
>
> Ofer.
>
> Lynn Morrison wrote in message <36A00892.AF11822E@whisp.com>...
> >DI Mandl Alexander wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree completely with your mail.
> >>
> >> I started with IS 2.02 which could only be called a beta version not a
> final
> >> release.
> >> If we deploy that buggy versions as InstallShield does, our customers
> would kill
> >> us.
> >>
> >> Greatings from Austria!
> >
> >
> > Their upgrade policy is the worst that I have ever seen... but you
> >should have known that coming in...
> >
> >Bye,
> >
> >Lynn

NewsArchive
01-28-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi Everyone,

I would like to let everyone who has contributed to this thread know that
your message has definitely been received by InstallShield management. The
decision to make 2.1 a paid upgrade was not a simple one, but if you look
at the whole picture, I think it will make some sense to those who make
their living selling software.

First, there had been no paid upgrades for Express for a year and a half
since the release of Express 2.0 in May, 1997. Obviously, we can't
continue development indefinitely without some sort of remuneration.

Second, we made some well intentioned mistakes between versions 2.0 and
2.04, adding new features without charging for upgrades. Our thinking was
that our customers would appreciate this, but in retrospect we realize that
these "freebies" do not seem that way to someone who wasn't using the
product since 2.0.

Third, we are working on a new release with additional features that will
be available at no cost to ISX 2.1x customers. Developers using 2.0x and
previous versions of ISX will still have the option to upgrade at the same
$145 price.

Finally, let me add that the decision to upgrade is always optional. We
understand that those who don't need the new features we've added won't
upgrade. Those who find value in what we do will. This is why we must
always focus on providing the greatest possible value in our upgrades.

I can assure you that, following the recent debate on this topic, we will
be very careful regarding what enhancements we expose in maintenance
releases. We do want to be very clear what value we are providing with new
releases so that you can make an intelligent decision regarding whether or
not they suit your needs.

And you can also be assured that we follow these newsgroups closely and are
ALWAYS paying attention to your comments, good or bad. One of the things I
appreciate the most about our customers is their honesty, and I sincerely
hope that will continue.

Regards,
Mike Byrne
ISX Product Mgr

Ofer LaOr <no-spam@olaor.isdnmail.co.il> wrote in article
<36a18a0d.0@news.installshield.com>...
> how would I have known this ahead of time? between versions 2 and 2.04
> users were not expected to pay anything!
>
> I fully recognize the validity of paying for a 1.X -> 2.X upgrade, but
not
> for a 2.x->2.Y upgrade.
>
> Ofer.
>
>
> Lynn Morrison wrote in message <36A00892.AF11822E@whisp.com>...
> >DI Mandl Alexander wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree completely with your mail.
> >>
> >> I started with IS 2.02 which could only be called a beta version not a
> final
> >> release.
> >> If we deploy that buggy versions as InstallShield does, our customers
> would kill
> >> us.
> >>
> >> Greatings from Austria!
> >
> >
> > Their upgrade policy is the worst that I have ever seen... but you
> >should have known that coming in...
> >
> >Bye,
> >
> >Lynn
>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-31-1999, 01:00 AM
I've moved from 2.04 to 2.11 and, after doing so, I can now officially say
that the upgrade cost is definitely unjustified.

Don't forget that Installshield clients are typically programmers and/or
companies that make software products themselves. As such, we do know
something about which features justify an major upgrade for an added cost.

You can't really come and say, well - we havn't had any new ideas for MAJOR
upgrade features in our products for a few months, so we added a bit of this
and a bit of that (admitidly, nothing major), renamed the product 2.1 and
now we can ask for $145 upgrade cost. What I'm saying is that in order to
generate revenue from a product that hasn't had any major releases in a long
period of time, you can't add two little features (minimal VB6 support and
command line interface), call it a major release and ask an upgrade price
that's about 50% of the purchase of a new package...

The way you *should* have done it is:
1. Either made the upgrade cost proportional to the changes made (i.e., much
lower).
Or...
2. Added significant features and called the upgrade 2.5 or even 3.0.

Bottom line, your customers won't like it if you charged $145 for the
command line feature...

I suspect that after these issues, you would be adding more features to the
2.1X line of upgrades (e.g., better VB dependency locator) which would
justify the very high upgrade cost.

One final word, I would never have upgraded at such a cost, if I hadn't
bought the package when I did (which allowed me to get the upgrade for
free).

Ofer.




Michael Byrne wrote in message
<01be4af5$c4568500$386511ac@michaelbyrne.installshield.com>...
>Hi Everyone,
>
>I would like to let everyone who has contributed to this thread know that
>your message has definitely been received by InstallShield management. The
>decision to make 2.1 a paid upgrade was not a simple one, but if you look
>at the whole picture, I think it will make some sense to those who make
>their living selling software.
>
>First, there had been no paid upgrades for Express for a year and a half
>since the release of Express 2.0 in May, 1997. Obviously, we can't
>continue development indefinitely without some sort of remuneration.
>
>Second, we made some well intentioned mistakes between versions 2.0 and
>2.04, adding new features without charging for upgrades. Our thinking was
>that our customers would appreciate this, but in retrospect we realize that
>these "freebies" do not seem that way to someone who wasn't using the
>product since 2.0.
>
>Third, we are working on a new release with additional features that will
>be available at no cost to ISX 2.1x customers. Developers using 2.0x and
>previous versions of ISX will still have the option to upgrade at the same
>$145 price.
>
>Finally, let me add that the decision to upgrade is always optional. We
>understand that those who don't need the new features we've added won't
>upgrade. Those who find value in what we do will. This is why we must
>always focus on providing the greatest possible value in our upgrades.
>
>I can assure you that, following the recent debate on this topic, we will
>be very careful regarding what enhancements we expose in maintenance
>releases. We do want to be very clear what value we are providing with new
>releases so that you can make an intelligent decision regarding whether or
>not they suit your needs.
>
>And you can also be assured that we follow these newsgroups closely and are
>ALWAYS paying attention to your comments, good or bad. One of the things I
>appreciate the most about our customers is their honesty, and I sincerely
>hope that will continue.
>
>Regards,
>Mike Byrne
>ISX Product Mgr
>
>Ofer LaOr <no-spam@olaor.isdnmail.co.il> wrote in article
><36a18a0d.0@news.installshield.com>...
>> how would I have known this ahead of time? between versions 2 and 2.04
>> users were not expected to pay anything!
>>
>> I fully recognize the validity of paying for a 1.X -> 2.X upgrade, but
>not
>> for a 2.x->2.Y upgrade.
>>
>> Ofer.
>>
>>
>> Lynn Morrison wrote in message <36A00892.AF11822E@whisp.com>...
>> >DI Mandl Alexander wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I agree completely with your mail.
>> >>
>> >> I started with IS 2.02 which could only be called a beta version not a
>> final
>> >> release.
>> >> If we deploy that buggy versions as InstallShield does, our customers
>> would kill
>> >> us.
>> >>
>> >> Greatings from Austria!
>> >
>> >
>> > Their upgrade policy is the worst that I have ever seen... but you
>> >should have known that coming in...
>> >
>> >Bye,
>> >
>> >Lynn
>>
>>
>>

NewsArchive
02-01-1999, 01:00 AM
Hear Hear!

Glad to see others sharing my opinions.

When I first raised my voice I was asked if I would like to discuss my
concerns with a senior IS officer and was told basically the same things
that were publicly told in this forum over & over. Interestingly since then,
the VB6 support that was the major piece of the equation has been falling to
pieces. Seems like the upgrade to 2.11 itself will need an upgrade to fix
the features that are there but not delivering any value as such.

I feel IS oves a BIG apology to all it's registered users and a free upgrade
to 2.11 to all 2.x users. Maybe then we will help them debug the product
(free of charge mind you) and bear with them while they get their act
together in regards to marketing and QA. Hopefully before their reputation
is blown to pieces.

BTW, Win2000 is just around the corner. With it's significantly changed
installation methodologies, ever wonder how much you will need to pay to
upgrade to Win2000 compatible ISX? Wonder how much time & $$$ it will cost
to make it work too?

Best Regards,
Kerem

Ofer LaOr wrote in message <36b4243a.0@news.installshield.com>...
>I've moved from 2.04 to 2.11 and, after doing so, I can now officially say
>that the upgrade cost is definitely unjustified.
>
>Don't forget that Installshield clients are typically programmers and/or
>companies that make software products themselves. As such, we do know
>something about which features justify an major upgrade for an added cost.
>
>You can't really come and say, well - we havn't had any new ideas for MAJOR
>upgrade features in our products for a few months, so we added a bit of
this
>and a bit of that (admitidly, nothing major), renamed the product 2.1 and
>now we can ask for $145 upgrade cost. What I'm saying is that in order to
>generate revenue from a product that hasn't had any major releases in a
long
>period of time, you can't add two little features (minimal VB6 support and
>command line interface), call it a major release and ask an upgrade price
>that's about 50% of the purchase of a new package...
>
>The way you *should* have done it is:
>1. Either made the upgrade cost proportional to the changes made (i.e.,
much
>lower).
>Or...
>2. Added significant features and called the upgrade 2.5 or even 3.0.
>
>Bottom line, your customers won't like it if you charged $145 for the
>command line feature...
>
>I suspect that after these issues, you would be adding more features to the
>2.1X line of upgrades (e.g., better VB dependency locator) which would
>justify the very high upgrade cost.
>
>One final word, I would never have upgraded at such a cost, if I hadn't
>bought the package when I did (which allowed me to get the upgrade for
>free).
>
>Ofer.
>
>

NewsArchive
02-01-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi Kerem,

>BTW, Win2000 is just around the corner. With it's significantly changed
>installation methodologies, ever wonder how much you will need to pay to
>upgrade to Win2000 compatible ISX? Wonder how much time & $$$ it will cost
>to make it work too?


InstallShield 5 (and I believe ISX, too) already allow you to create Win2000
compliant setups, i.e. setups that are entitled for the "basic" Win2000
logo.
If you want to make use of the new setup features in Win200 (and get the
"gold" logo) you need a new tool, e.g. InstallShield for Windows Installer
(ISWi).
Hopefully there will be a migration path to move IS5 and ISX projects to
ISWi...

Stefan Krueger
Independent Setup Consultant

NEU: Deutschsprachiges Forum auf InstallSite

// InstallSite - Resources for setup developers
// http://www.installsite.org (primary site - USA)
// http://installsite.sw.com.sg (mirror site - Singapore)

My reply-to address is invalid to avoid spam.
If you are looking for individual assistance,
like e-mail support, please mail to
contract@installsite.org for support options.

NewsArchive
02-06-1999, 01:00 AM
> InstallShield 5 (and I believe ISX, too) already allow you to create Win2000
> compliant setups, i.e. setups that are entitled for the "basic" Win2000
> logo.

Not that I can see. It is 98 compliant, but I think that is about it.

Bye,

Lynn

NewsArchive
04-21-1999, 12:00 AM
Hello Eric.

How soon can we look forward to this update?
Couple weeks, a month, couple months?
Any idea?

Thanks
Warren Medernach
Aurbis Technical Centre, Ltd.

InstallShield Software Corp. <ericp@installshield.com> wrote in message
news:371e4492.0@news.installshield.com...
> No, but the next release, 2.12, which will be released soon, will have
> support for ADO 2 and it will handle such things as installing DCOM and
> MDAC_TYP.EXE. The current trend is to launch these installations out as
> Express extensions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Eric
> InstallShield

NewsArchive
06-14-1999, 12:00 AM
i tried everything thaty article says and to no avail :( I am really
starting to like the Borland bde I never had this kind of problem. Its not a
install shield problem either :)

Thanks,

Marc

InstallShield Software Corp. wrote in message
<376029f4.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Marc, I am not sure if you saw this already but MS has an explanation of
>this error
>in this KB. http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q192/9/34.asp
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Eric
>InstallShield Support
>
>
>Sault Custom Programming wrote in message
><375eab11.0@news.installshield.com>...
>>i deploy my bv5/dao program using isx2.11 to 3 machines.
>>
>>works fine on one machine that was receitly clean and win nt installed
from
>>scatch.
>>
>>second machine while using the program it will crash ans show doctor
>watson.
>>if i use the program and the machine that was used for programming and
>>deployment the program works fine and does not crash.
>>
>>3rd machine when you start the program I get
>>
>>Error # 3447 was generated by DAO, DbEngine
>>The Jet VBA file(vbajet.dll for 16-bit versions, or vbajet32.dll for
32-bit
>>version) failed to
>>initialized when called. try reinstalling the application that return the
>>error.
>>
>>
>>can someone help me here, please.
>>Marc
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
06-14-1999, 12:00 AM
I sey YES to all your question...

but the problem persist.

Please help me



InstallShield Software Corp. ha scritto nel messaggio
<37602770.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Did the MDAC installation run install successfully. How does the control
>connect
>to the Data. If you are using a DSN as your connection did the DSN get
>created?
>Is the driver there and installed properly? Is the Database there?
>
>You might want to see if this is a problem with the control or the data
>connection
>by creating and ADODB connection and an ADODB recordset to see it that can
>connect
>to the table that you are using to fill the control.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Eric
>InstallShield Support
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Maurizio Coffinardi wrote in message <375fd8df.0@news.installshield.com>...
>>Hi,
>>
>>Somebody can tell me why when I install my app (VB6 + ADO) with DCOM98 and
>>MDAC_TYP.EXE all work correctly but the DataGrid don't populate with data?
>>
>>I'm using InstallShield Express 2.11 and VB6 sp2... please help me!!!
>>
>>Thank you (sorry for my english)
>>
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
06-29-1999, 12:00 AM
Hi Maurizio,
I am having the same problem, I have a DataGrid bounded to an Adodc control,
it is called from several parts of the project with a new SQL string each
time, and nowhere works, it simply does not populate.

But the AdoDc seems to,

all the project is converted to ADO, and the Datagrid is the only thing that
does not work, after installing on a new computer.

Please let me know, if you solve this..

Thanks-.

>
>Somebody can tell me why when I install my app (VB6 + ADO) with DCOM98 and
>MDAC_TYP.EXE all work correctly but the DataGrid don't populate with data?
>
>I'm using InstallShield Express 2.11 and VB6 sp2... please help me!!!

NewsArchive
07-23-1999, 12:00 AM
Just as long as the target machines have WINZIP on them. The problem is
that how will you know where winzip is on the target machines so that you
can
launch the executable. The best way that I think for you to handle this
problem
would be write an extension that calls the ShellExecute API you can pass the
name
WINZIP.EXE and it will find it for you by reading the App paths key in the
registry,
this would be similar to typing winzip in the Run Command of the start menu.

Hope this helps,

Eric
InstallShield Support





James Kost wrote in message <375bd94a.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Can you use existing Zipped files and have InstallShield unpack the files
to
>the approiate dirs?
>
>Jim Kost
>
>jkost@mgpi.com
>
>

NewsArchive
08-18-1999, 12:00 AM
Jeppe,

Can you send me this IWZ file? I will try to reproduce
this and will get back to you with a solution.

Thanks,

Eric
InstallShield Support
ericp@installshield.com


Jeppe Jespersen wrote in message <37ba9a57.0@news.installshield.com>...
>I'm new, please bear with me. If you're nice, I'll buy you icecream.
>
>BTW, I am using InstallShield Express 2.11
>
>I have a project where I use a number of 3rd party controls.
>Most install fine, but two OCX'es aren't being copied to the target
>machine when I run the install.
>
>They are TDBG5.OCX (True DB Grid) and CSTEXT32.OCX (from
>Crescent). They are included in my files list in the .iwz-project,
>but fail to copy. Am I missing something crucial here, or what's
>the deal?
>
>Also, crviewer.dll (for Crystal Reports) is not being copied to the
>target machine. That also is included in the files list in my Install-
>project, and no errors or anything come up when I build the diskset.
>The files _are_ in the directories that I specify in the files list, so
>I'm kind of stumped here.
>
>All suggestions will be rewarded with a joke.
>(Boy, this'll get'em going, won't it...)
>
>Thanks,
>Jeppe Jespersen,
>Denmark
>
>
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
10-06-1999, 12:00 AM
Ian, I did reproduce this. A work order has been created for this. I will
also request for it to be fixed in the 2.13 release.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

Eric
InstallShield Support



Ian Smith wrote in message <37f2df65.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Using ISE 2.12 and trying to update a private INI file with Office 97 file
>location using OFFICEDIR specifier.
>
>It fails to translate of the 2 different computers that I've tried it on.
>
>I understand ISE looks at
>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\8.0\\Common\\InstallRott\\OfficeBi
n
>. This key exists in my registry.
>
>Any thoughts, please
>
>Ian Smith
>
>

NewsArchive
10-08-1999, 12:00 AM
I notice the same 32 to16 bit file shortening as well. It doesn't appear to
stop the keys values functioning.

Simon Jones

Steve <nospam@noneya.com> wrote in message
news:37e687b1.0@news.installshield.com...
> I'm using the <INSTALLDIR> in the registry's RunOnce key to pass the
install
> path to a program I'm including with my installation. The problem is that
> <INSTALLDIR> seems to be returning a 16 bit file name instead of the 32
bit
> long file name. Is there a way to get it to return the full long filename?
>
> Steve
> Simon Jones <simonNOTTHIS@eurovoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:37d77d4f.0@news.installshield.com...
> > Hello,
> > I need to setup a regisitry key that points to a file in a dynamic path
> > (path choosen by customer). Is this possible with ISX?
> > Example: \SOFTWARE\myprog\<INSTALLDIR>\logfile.txt.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon Jones
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-12-1999, 12:00 AM
Ken, I would recommend using a DLL for this. Launching another process to
display a message is too much overhead.
Create a new blank Win32DLL project. Add a def file and a cpp file to your
project with the following contents.

; Sample DEF File
LIBRARY "ShowMessageToUser" ; Library should be identical to the name of
your DLL project or built DLL
EXPORTS ShowMessage ; The name of the function that you are calling from
express

// CPP file
#include <windows.h>
int WINAPI DllMain( HINSTANCE hInstance, DWORD fdwReason, PVOID pvReserved )
{
return TRUE;
}
char APIENTRY ShowMessage(HWND hSetup, LPSTR lpSrcDir, LPSTR lpSupDir, LPSTR
lpInstDir, LPSTR lpNull)
{
MessageBox(NULL,szError,"",MB_OK);
return (char)TRUE;
}

Remember to build the DLL in release mode for tighter, much smaller DLL.

Hope this helps,

Eric
InstallShield Support





Kenneth G. Jarvis, CPA wrote in message
<380333e3.0@news.installshield.com>...
>This is what I have so far. It compiles fine and runs ok. I went into the
>diskbuilder and placed it as a Temp file. I do not know what to do next.
>Or perhaps I am on the wrong track. Any assistance is appreciated.
>
>Best Regards,
>Ken
>
>
>// Test.cpp : Defines the entry point for the application.
>//
>
>#include <windows.h> // Included to allow use of MessageBox()
>#include "stdafx.h"
>
>int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance,
> HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> LPSTR lpCmdLine,
> int nCmdShow)
>{
> MessageBox(NULL , "Message to User", "Setup",
> MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION );
>
> return 1;
>}
>
>
>
>
>Kenneth G. Jarvis, CPA <kjarvis@meti.com> wrote in message
>news:38032fbd.0@news.installshield.com...
>> I just need to make a simple message box so the user can read before the
>> setup begins. I currently place the information I want to tell the user
>in
>> a readme file, however, nobody seems to read the readme file. How do I
>> create this message box so to force the user to at least read the first
>> coulple of words? I guess I need to use C (which I do not know very
>well).
>> Should I do it with a EXE or a DLL. Where should I place this file with
>the
>> message box so the Setup routine can see and run it. I am also not sure
>of
>> how to exactly call this message box either. Any assistance is
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Ken
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
10-13-1999, 12:00 AM
Thanks for the info! It seems that this problem is resolved using the
fm20enu.dll in conjunction with the fm20.dll. You must be sure that both
versions are compatible or else you end up getting a run-time 327 which is an
outdated fm20 and control for app.
Thanks again!
Robert

"roland@ingsoft.de" wrote:

> I once had a memory problem (err 7). That was because the Richtext32.dll or
> similar didn't get all dependencies installed (swdepend.ini was simply
> missing something). I seemed to miss the Gapi.dll which does not need to be
> registered. I simply included it in the swdepend.ini and evereything worked
> fine.
> This might not be the exact cause in your case, but it sounds similar.
> Good luck,
> roland@ingsoft.de

NewsArchive
10-14-1999, 12:00 AM
I have the same problem on Windows NT 3.51 computers. It happens when I load
a form containing a Forms 2.0 listbox (from fm20.dll library). I have, on
some computers, an error 53 (file not found, perhaps a dependency ?) or an
error 7 (Out of memory). Do you think it could be the same problem ?


<rak2@home.com> a écrit dans le message : 3804B1EB.FB0AEF62@home.com...
> Thanks for the info! It seems that this problem is resolved using the
> fm20enu.dll in conjunction with the fm20.dll. You must be sure that both
> versions are compatible or else you end up getting a run-time 327 which is
an
> outdated fm20 and control for app.
> Thanks again!
> Robert
>
> "roland@ingsoft.de" wrote:
>
> > I once had a memory problem (err 7). That was because the Richtext32.dll
or
> > similar didn't get all dependencies installed (swdepend.ini was simply
> > missing something). I seemed to miss the Gapi.dll which does not need to
be
> > registered. I simply included it in the swdepend.ini and evereything
worked
> > fine.
> > This might not be the exact cause in your case, but it sounds similar.
> > Good luck,
> > roland@ingsoft.de
>

NewsArchive
10-14-1999, 12:00 AM
Possibly, when tracking it I found that the fm20 calls the fm20enu.dll. It is
important to make sure that the versions are the same or you will run into an
(r-t 327) outdated control reference to your app. I also noticed that there was
a call to the riched dll but am not positive that this has anything to do with
that but the fm20enu seemed to clear up allot of issues.
Robert

Mikael LAUSSEUR wrote:

> I have the same problem on Windows NT 3.51 computers. It happens when I load
> a form containing a Forms 2.0 listbox (from fm20.dll library). I have, on
> some computers, an error 53 (file not found, perhaps a dependency ?) or an
> error 7 (Out of memory). Do you think it could be the same problem ?
>
> <rak2@home.com> a écrit dans le message : 3804B1EB.FB0AEF62@home.com...
> > Thanks for the info! It seems that this problem is resolved using the
> > fm20enu.dll in conjunction with the fm20.dll. You must be sure that both
> > versions are compatible or else you end up getting a run-time 327 which is
> an
> > outdated fm20 and control for app.
> > Thanks again!
> > Robert
> >
> > "roland@ingsoft.de" wrote:
> >
> > > I once had a memory problem (err 7). That was because the Richtext32.dll
> or
> > > similar didn't get all dependencies installed (swdepend.ini was simply
> > > missing something). I seemed to miss the Gapi.dll which does not need to
> be
> > > registered. I simply included it in the swdepend.ini and evereything
> worked
> > > fine.
> > > This might not be the exact cause in your case, but it sounds similar.
> > > Good luck,
> > > roland@ingsoft.de
> >

NewsArchive
10-21-1999, 12:00 AM
Ofer:
What is the code to call the dllregisterserver function?
I have an issue where a 'rogue help window' opens telling me "error: page
not found" if I tell an active X DLL to register during InstallShield
Express runtime

hhActiveX.dll

is the file at issue.

If i type START / RUN / Regsvr32 HHACTIVEX.DLL, the system reports that it
successfully registered, and NO rogue IE Help Window...

I'm mystified, and have written to Installshield support requesting
assistance.

I went farther and told my Installshield project to copy Regsvr32.exe to
c:\windows\system and then run that program and install the Active X dll,
and STILL got the stupid help window declaring "page not found"

I would love to know the FIX to this... it's delaying my project from being
deployed!

Ofer LaOr <no-spam@olaor.isdnmail.co.il> wrote in message
news:37e9f153.0@news.installshield.com...
> Hi,
>
> I submitted an issue to this newsgroup about 2.12 crashing while
registering
> several of my ATL 3 DLLs.
>
> I have yet to receive any information about this problem. I am currently
> using a workaround (my application registers these through a VB declare
> statement to the DllRegisterServer function). However, since it doesn't
> know if they are registered or not - my application has to do this every
> time it loads.
>
> I think it's disgraceful that I have to do these setup things myself
instead
> of relying on the installation program.
>
> Ofer
>
>

NewsArchive
10-24-1999, 12:00 AM
First off, if you're having registration problems, turn off the checkbox for
the DLL in question so that ISX doesn't self register the DLL.

If you are using VB, you can basically do:

Private Declare Sub RegisterODVFW Lib "odvfw2.dll" Alias "DllRegisterServer"
()

In this case, for example - the odvfw2.dll is in the c:\windows\system
directory (it will also find it if it is in the application directory). You
can call REgisterODVFW (or whatever you name your function) in your main
subroutine prior to instanciating any objects in that library.

Alternatively, you can get a latest regsvr32.exe and run
regsvr32.exe /s <dll path>\dllname.dll

this can be done from the ISX extension or by your application (using an
shell execute call).


Scott McDonald <mcd2000@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:380ff93f.0@news.installshield.com...
> Ofer:
> What is the code to call the dllregisterserver function?
> I have an issue where a 'rogue help window' opens telling me "error: page
> not found" if I tell an active X DLL to register during InstallShield
> Express runtime
>
> hhActiveX.dll
>
> is the file at issue.
>
> If i type START / RUN / Regsvr32 HHACTIVEX.DLL, the system reports that it
> successfully registered, and NO rogue IE Help Window...
>
> I'm mystified, and have written to Installshield support requesting
> assistance.
>
> I went farther and told my Installshield project to copy Regsvr32.exe to
> c:\windows\system and then run that program and install the Active X dll,
> and STILL got the stupid help window declaring "page not found"
>
> I would love to know the FIX to this... it's delaying my project from
being
> deployed!
>
> Ofer LaOr <no-spam@olaor.isdnmail.co.il> wrote in message
> news:37e9f153.0@news.installshield.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I submitted an issue to this newsgroup about 2.12 crashing while
> registering
> > several of my ATL 3 DLLs.
> >
> > I have yet to receive any information about this problem. I am
currently
> > using a workaround (my application registers these through a VB declare
> > statement to the DllRegisterServer function). However, since it doesn't
> > know if they are registered or not - my application has to do this every
> > time it loads.
> >
> > I think it's disgraceful that I have to do these setup things myself
> instead
> > of relying on the installation program.
> >
> > Ofer
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-24-1999, 12:00 AM
Can I presume you included all the dll's and active x ocx components in your
ISX *.iwz deployment file setup? And that you checked their properties to
"self-register" these same files?

Bob Sams <bobs@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:37e8bf14.0@news.installshield.com...
> The program is a client/server application where the database runs on SQL
> Server, and the client on win98. It is when I installed the client that
the
> errors mentioned occurred.
>
> Bob
>
>
> Ken Halter wrote in message <37e7ce43.0@news.installshield.com>...
> >I'm curious to find out how you got SQL Server 6.5 to run on Win98. I was
> under the impression that you need NT to run any version
> >of SQL Server.
> >
> >Bob <bob@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:37d48eec.0@news.installshield.com...
> >> We wrote a program using Visual Basic 6, and SQL Server 6.5. We
generated
> a
> >> set-up file using Install Shield 2.02.
> >>
> >> The application was successfully installed on a Windows 98 machine. But
> when
> >> we try to run the application these errors appeared:
> >>
> >> (1) MSCOMCTL.OCX or one of its dependencies were not registered
> correctly.
> >> (2) CRYSTL32.OCX or one of its dependencies were not registered
> correctly.
> >> (3) OLEAUT32.dll was out of date.
> >> (4) MSWINSCK.OCX or one of its dependencies were not registered
> correctly.
> >>
> >> How do we fix it? Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> - Bob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-28-1999, 12:00 AM
Antony, I have a similar situation. I understand why it is asking for the
files. You must be building a German version install file. VBRun has a
dependency on the vb6de.dll (and others) for installation on a German
machine. My question is where do I get these files. I need to build a
German install but cannot find the xxxde.dll files. I have been to the MS
Labyrith with no success. Does anyone know where to get the various
language support dlls?

John


Antony Meadley wrote in message <37fcc3b9.0@news.installshield.com>...
>I then removed these non-existent files from the build, and created an
>installation package.
>
>However, when I tried to install on the client's machine, when the install
>was nearly finished, it crashed with the message "An application error has
>occurred _INS0432._MP.exe
>Exception: stack overflow (0xc00000fd) Address: 0x57041bc7"
>
>I tried the installation again, and got exactly the same error.
>
>What is the problem????
>
>Thanks,
>Antony
>
>>When I am using the "Disk Builder" part of InstallShield Express, and
click
>>on "Start Build", it immediately displays a dialog saying "The file
>>C:\WINNT\System32\VB6DE.DLL could not be found. Do you wish to locate it
>>now?"
>>
>>But I have searched my entire hard disk, and I do not have this file.
>Should
>>I ? Why is IS looking for it ?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Antony
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-08-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
If you do not find the _setup.dll. Please restart your machine and see if
you have _setup.dll. Sometimes it requires the reboot.
I hope this helps

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Maurizio Coffinardi wrote in message <372b46c9.0@news.installshield.com>...
>I have downloaded the trial version of installshield express but when i try
>to install it i have an error... can't find _setup.dll... it is probably a
>problem of download but if some good person can send me that file i don't
>have to download 11,5 MB again.
>
>Thank you very much...
>
>sorry for my English
>
>Maurizio Coffinardi
>coffinardi@secoges.com
>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-08-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
There is no such product. You can download an eval copy of Express from our
website. http://www.installshield.com

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
InstallShield Software Corporation wrote in message
<372e1136.35666645@news.installshield.com>...
>On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:40:00 +0800, Eric <d951686@sftw.umac.mo> wrote:
>>Would you please to tell me the exact download site for download
>>InstallShield for VB5/6 ????
>
>There is no such product. You can download an eval copy of Express from our
>website.
>
>-
>Product Support Services
>InstallShield Software Corporation
>It All Starts Here (R)
>

NewsArchive
12-08-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
Is it just happening only on 95 or it is also changes the background on 98
and NT?
Please let me know.

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Paula Stana wrote in message <37332ebb.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Has anyone ever encountered an install changing the Win95 background
>wallpaper? Before install, the background wallpaper is set to None - no
>picture. After install, the background wallpaper changes to the wallpaper
>that was on the Win95 machine that was shipped from the manuafacturer (i.e.
>has Compaq's logo on it). Any ideas?
>
>

NewsArchive
12-09-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
These files can be found at MicroSoft site. Please have a look at our
knowledge base article
on this issue. The article number is Q101702. And our web site address is,
http://www.installshield.com > support > knowledge base > Q101702 (under
article # )
I hope this helps

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Marc Kahn wrote in message <373359c0.0@news.installshield.com>...
>ISX has determined that the following are "required" system files, for my
>VB6
>application:
>
>msltus35.dll, mspdox35.dll, and msxbse35.dll
>
>My development machine is an NT 4.0 SP3 machine, but these files don't
>exist.
>I wanted to just remove them from the system files group, but I get an
>ominous
>message that they are required by my application. I don't want to create
>any
>problems downstream, so now I need advice.
>
>Has anyone else experienced this problem? How did you resolve it?
>
>Thanks,
>Marc Kahn
>
>

NewsArchive
12-09-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
If you are installing MDAC 2.0 on 95, then you do not have to install DCOM
95 first because MDAC
will install it for you. And, 98 machine comes with DCOM 98. The way to
check if DCOM 95 is
install or not is; Disk Builder > "TEMP" tab > you will see DCOM 95 here. I
hope this helps

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Fred Block wrote in message <373487db.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Hi,
>
>If you're using MDAC_TYP, you'll first need to install DCOM98 on Win95/98
>machines.
>
>Good luck --
>Fred
>
>

NewsArchive
12-09-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
InstallShield Express has no such feature that checks if the previously
version i sinstalled
or not. I hope this helps

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Nick Marschel wrote in message <37442252.0@news.installshield.com>...
>
>Is it possible with installshield express to create one installation
routine
>that is capable
>of running a slightly different installation depending on whether the
>machine has a previous installation of
>the software?
>
>I would like to create one installation that installs one set of files if a
>machine already has a previous
>version and a slightly different set of files if the machine does not
>already have a previous version.
>I would like to avoid making two different distributions if this is
>possible. The files I am planning on
>distributing are more than just .exe and .dll/.ocx files. I also need to
>distribute some data files which are
>different depending on whether this is a new or existing installation
>
>thanks,
>Nick Marschel
>ATC
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-09-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
Please take a look at our knowledge base article number Q102689 on our site.
htpp://www.installshield.com

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Maurizio Coffinardi wrote in message <375d507f.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Hi,
>
>Somebody can tell me why when I install my app (VB6 + ADO) with DCOM98 and
>MDAC_TYP.EXE all work correctly but the DataGrid don't populate with data?
>
>I'm using InstallShield Express 2.11 and VB6 sp2,
>I send you my project .IWZ too... please help me!!!
>
>Thank you (sorry for my english)
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-10-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
Is it still happening?
At what point it is happening?
What OS is it?
What is your project type?
How big is your project?
Please let me know.

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Ksenia wrote in message <37522f8f.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Hi,
>If I launch a Self-Extracting EXE created with Install Shield express - no
>matter what VB project I made it for - I hear a "beep" - one of the Windows
>sounds, then the screen twincle for the next view seconds and then
>everything is going normal. What can cause it?!
>Thanks,
>Ksenia.
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-14-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
This is not available using InstallShield Express at this time.

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Mario Enriquez wrote in message <3760b145.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Hi,
>
>I just want to know if there is a way to create custom InstallShield
>Objects. This is because I deploying several different apps. that use the
>sheridan controls, and I would like to create an ISX object for each of
this
>controls so I don't have to add the requiered files for this controls
>manually every time I had to deploy a different project.
>
>Thanks in Advance,
>Mario Enriquez
>
>P.S. Please excuse my English.
>
>

NewsArchive
12-17-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
Yes, this is done by specifying the file update method in the properties of
your filegroups. ISX does not have a backup utility program to backup files
that were
overwritten.

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
InstallShield Software Corp. wrote in message
<37276cea.0@news.installshield.com>...
>Yes, this is done by specifying the file update method in the properties of
>your filegroups.
>ISX does not have a backup utility program to backup files that were
>overwritten.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Eric
>InstallShield Support
>
>
>Peter Pascale wrote in message <371FD3D9.75BD8592@dnr.state.mn.us>...
>>Does InstallShield Express support intelligent installation of DLLs? In
>>the sense that it will never overwrite a newer version of a dll with an
>>older? I am assuming that this is an option to be set? I do not want to
>>overwrite the latest version, as some of my clients may have newer
>>windows DLLs if they have loaded the latest Microsoft Internet Explorer.
>>
>>And does Express support backup of any replaced DLL files? Such that any
>>DLL that is overwritten in the install process first has a backup made
>>to the application directory of the newly installed program. Thanks!
>>
>>Peter Pascale
>>peter.pascale@dnr.state.mn.us
>>Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
>>Management Information Services
>>
>>
>
>

NewsArchive
12-17-1999, 01:00 AM
Hi
I need some more info. inorder to solve this,
1. what project type you are using?
2. what is the OS?
3. At what point you are getting an error?
4. What does it say?

Regards
--
Alpesh S.
InstallShield Technical Support

InstallShield® Professional 2000 is now available from InstallShield
Software Corporation! Take advantage of new event-based scripting
and enhanced third-party technology support. Target the Windows Installer
service of Windows 2000. Find out more! Visit www.installshield.com
and upgrade to InstallShield Professional 2000 today!
Brian Hanson wrote in message <373C70BC.688F2E71@kpla.com>...
>
>After running an install on a virgin machine, the install goes fine but
>when I launch the app I get Run-time error 2147417848 (80010108)
>Automation Error. What the
>heck is that? It works fine from the machine I made the install on so
>obviously something is mussing. Is there any way to track what it is
>that it's bombing on?
>
>

NewsArchive
12-23-1999, 01:00 AM
Unfortunatly, I have the same problem. It seems that installdir contains a
shortfilename description of the path.

If somebody find an answer to this problem please notify me.

Mathieu Riendeau
Programmer
CMA Solutions

Simon Jones <simonNOTTHIS@eurovoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37fdf798.0@news.installshield.com...
> I notice the same 32 to16 bit file shortening as well. It doesn't appear
to
> stop the keys values functioning.
>
> Simon Jones
>
> Steve <nospam@noneya.com> wrote in message
> news:37e687b1.0@news.installshield.com...
> > I'm using the <INSTALLDIR> in the registry's RunOnce key to pass the
> install
> > path to a program I'm including with my installation. The problem is
that
> > <INSTALLDIR> seems to be returning a 16 bit file name instead of the 32
> bit
> > long file name. Is there a way to get it to return the full long
filename?
> >
> > Steve
> > Simon Jones <simonNOTTHIS@eurovoice.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:37d77d4f.0@news.installshield.com...
> > > Hello,
> > > I need to setup a regisitry key that points to a file in a dynamic
path
> > > (path choosen by customer). Is this possible with ISX?
> > > Example: \SOFTWARE\myprog\<INSTALLDIR>\logfile.txt.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Simon Jones
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-13-2000, 12:00 AM
Hi,

Unfortunately, I have only 2.12 and I do not know how to find a free 2.13.

Thanks.

Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
39e4b3d8$1@12.41.20.38...
> What version of Express? I use 2.13. When you select"Copy to disk",
under
> the drop down list for Drive, there is an option to create single
executable
> file. You do not have the option to provide a name, but you can specifiy
the
> location. You can rename it after creation. When you double click on the
> file it starts the installation.
>
> Herbie
> Martin RODOT <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
news:39e40d6a@12.41.20.38...
> > Hi,
> >
> > After I have created a distribution with ISX, I'd like to distribute
only
> > one executable installation file.
> >
> > It is ok with WINZIP and WINZIP-SE to make only on EXE, and I haven't
see
> > any other solution with only InstallShield.
> >
> > Problem is that it is a long process to Winzip manually, specially when
> > there is several "disks".
> > With old PKZIP I was able manage to automate the process, but now I need
> to
> > make 32 bits exe with and long names files.
> >
> > I bought WinZip 8 for this reason, but I don't find any command line or
> > command file to make it automatic.
> >
> > I could program a tool my self with some ZIP components, 32 bits
compliant
> ?
> >
> > But I cannot believe that there is no ready-to-use solution !
> >
> > Thanks for ideas.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-17-2000, 12:00 AM
Not Sure, But I think it is part of 2.12 as well..

"Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
news:39e6b2df@12.41.20.38...
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately, I have only 2.12 and I do not know how to find a free 2.13.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> 39e4b3d8$1@12.41.20.38...
> > What version of Express? I use 2.13. When you select"Copy to disk",
> under
> > the drop down list for Drive, there is an option to create single
> executable
> > file. You do not have the option to provide a name, but you can specifiy
> the
> > location. You can rename it after creation. When you double click on
the
> > file it starts the installation.
> >
> > Herbie
> > Martin RODOT <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> news:39e40d6a@12.41.20.38...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > After I have created a distribution with ISX, I'd like to distribute
> only
> > > one executable installation file.
> > >
> > > It is ok with WINZIP and WINZIP-SE to make only on EXE, and I haven't
> see
> > > any other solution with only InstallShield.
> > >
> > > Problem is that it is a long process to Winzip manually, specially
when
> > > there is several "disks".
> > > With old PKZIP I was able manage to automate the process, but now I
need
> > to
> > > make 32 bits exe with and long names files.
> > >
> > > I bought WinZip 8 for this reason, but I don't find any command line
or
> > > command file to make it automatic.
> > >
> > > I could program a tool my self with some ZIP components, 32 bits
> compliant
> > ?
> > >
> > > But I cannot believe that there is no ready-to-use solution !
> > >
> > > Thanks for ideas.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-21-2000, 12:00 AM
I've returned 3.01 and gone back to 2.13. A number of features I use were
dropped in 3.01, e.g. the ability to specify update on date only. Also if a
user deleted a file associated with our application, they would have to do
an uninstall and then re-install (confirmed by tech support). They could not
just re-run the setup.

"Rolf Hentrich" <hentrich.r@bigfoot.de> wrote in message
news:39dbac60$1@12.41.20.38...
> I spent a few hours today with testing the WISE IB8.1 Eval
> - I was able to rebuild my installation package within 2 hours
> - Now I'm already trying out some "advanced" features
> - Language support exists for de,en,fr,es,it
> - WISE is much faster in compiling and building
> - It needs less memory (8MB) while ISX3.02 took up to 50MB under NT4
> - I can use scripts to customize my installs AND rund them in debug mode!
>
> MOST IMPORTANT: Everything worked as expected. No trial and error....
>
> When I think about how much time that would have saved for me......
>
> Well, I still have to make some tests on different machines with different
> OS (not possible with the EVAL, need full product first).
> However, I don't expect any problems as from what I have seen up to now.
>
> I wrote a letter to IS Germany complaining about all the problems.
> They reacted very quick.
> However, they refused a refund because I have exceeded the 30 day limit
and
> said
> "You should have talked to us earlier..:". "We would have helped you..:"
> They only offered me a voucher which I can use to buy "future" IS
products.
>
> ... I know what I have to think about that ...
>
> I have ordered WISE IB 8.1 now!
>
>
> Best Regards
> Rolf
>
> P.S.
> I also tested CreateInstaller2000 and SEAU.
> Not bad, but also not really what I'm looking for.
> WISE fits my needs best up to now.
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
10-22-2000, 12:00 AM
NO, it is not a part of 2.13
I have made my own utility to move all disk images in one directory.

Regards



Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
39ec8c25$1@12.41.20.38...
>
> Not Sure, But I think it is part of 2.12 as well..
>
> "Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> news:39e6b2df@12.41.20.38...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Unfortunately, I have only 2.12 and I do not know how to find a free
2.13.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> > 39e4b3d8$1@12.41.20.38...
> > > What version of Express? I use 2.13. When you select"Copy to disk",
> > under
> > > the drop down list for Drive, there is an option to create single
> > executable
> > > file. You do not have the option to provide a name, but you can
specifiy
> > the
> > > location. You can rename it after creation. When you double click on
> the
> > > file it starts the installation.
> > >
> > > Herbie
> > > Martin RODOT <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> > news:39e40d6a@12.41.20.38...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > After I have created a distribution with ISX, I'd like to distribute
> > only
> > > > one executable installation file.
> > > >
> > > > It is ok with WINZIP and WINZIP-SE to make only on EXE, and I
haven't
> > see
> > > > any other solution with only InstallShield.
> > > >
> > > > Problem is that it is a long process to Winzip manually, specially
> when
> > > > there is several "disks".
> > > > With old PKZIP I was able manage to automate the process, but now I
> need
> > > to
> > > > make 32 bits exe with and long names files.
> > > >
> > > > I bought WinZip 8 for this reason, but I don't find any command line
> or
> > > > command file to make it automatic.
> > > >
> > > > I could program a tool my self with some ZIP components, 32 bits
> > compliant
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > But I cannot believe that there is no ready-to-use solution !
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for ideas.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
10-26-2000, 12:00 AM
Good day,

I downloaded the setup.exe from the site you provided. I removed the old
BDE Merge Module, and installed the one downloaded. The installation went
nice and smoothly.

Now, my question is, how do I configure an alias and set the database
location. The location cannot be static, because it depends on where the
user decided to deploy the application. So my question is how do I
configure the BDE Merge Module so I can install the proper alias, and
database location on a clients computer? So far I haven't found any
information to accomplish this task.

Thank you,


--
Peter Dragun, pdragun@asifluid.com
Alternate Solutions
System/Software Designer
-
www.asifluid.com



"Niru-InstallShield" <supportnews@installshield.com> wrote in message
news:39f843d0$1@12.41.20.38...
> Hello,
>
> Are you using Borland's Merge Module or the one that we have posted on our
> web site. If you are using Borland's Merge Module for BDE, can I get you
to
> download our BDE Merge Module and try with that. You can downlaod the
Merge
> Module at http://support.installshield.com/download/modules.asp. I am
asking
> you to try with our Merge Module as it has been tested with Express 3.01
> and is simple to use. When you get to the above site, make sure that you
do
> click on BDE 5.1(ENT) or BDE 5.1 (PRO) to read the attached Knowledge base
> article for installing and configuring the Merge Module.
>
> Thanks,
> Niru
>

NewsArchive
10-30-2000, 01:00 AM
Franco,
I just downloaded the 50Mb demo from your web site and installed it on
Windows 2000 professional.
The install seemed to go OK apart from a pop-up message relating to windows
installer version?, then upon starting up InstallShield Express 3.01, I get
the NetQuartz splash, then an error:
NetQuartz LinkStudio
Connection Error - Do you want to retry ?
The retry does not work.
I found the ntqz0.exe file in the c:\program
files\installshield\InstallSHield Express 3.01 folder and ran it.
It generates a program error and aborts immediately. It seems it is not
compatible with Windows 2000.

I searched your FAQ and knowledge base and could not find any information on
this error.
Am I the first ever user to find it?
I checked your news group here and found this thread which seems to have
stalled.
Did chanecc@netvigator.com fix the problem?

Garry Lowther
Cambridge

Franco-InstallShield <supportnews@installshield.com> wrote in message
news:39be211f$1@12.41.20.38...
> Hello Effective
>
> Can you tell me if you are still having the same problem?
>
> --
> Regards
> Franco Pagnamenta
> InstallShield Software Corp.
> "effective" <chanecc@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:39B45FB9.B3F7FD6D@netvigator.com...
> > I have download the InstallShield Express 3.0, But when I excuate the
> > sofware,
> > I prompt "connection to server " and ask me to retry . I will no
> > response!
> > Pls help !
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
11-28-2000, 01:00 AM
Martin

For your info, I have been doing this with 2.1
while the "Copy to Floppy" dialog is displayed on the screen, click on the
"Help" button. When the help comes up click on the "self-extracting single
file installation" link. Works just the way advertised.

You can also accomplish what you are doing through installedShield Express
as well.

Herbie
"Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
news:39f34f57@12.41.20.38...
> NO, it is not a part of 2.13
> I have made my own utility to move all disk images in one directory.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> 39ec8c25$1@12.41.20.38...
> >
> > Not Sure, But I think it is part of 2.12 as well..
> >
> > "Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> > news:39e6b2df@12.41.20.38...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I have only 2.12 and I do not know how to find a free
> 2.13.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> > > 39e4b3d8$1@12.41.20.38...
> > > > What version of Express? I use 2.13. When you select"Copy to
disk",
> > > under
> > > > the drop down list for Drive, there is an option to create single
> > > executable
> > > > file. You do not have the option to provide a name, but you can
> specifiy
> > > the
> > > > location. You can rename it after creation. When you double click
on
> > the
> > > > file it starts the installation.
> > > >
> > > > Herbie
> > > > Martin RODOT <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> > > news:39e40d6a@12.41.20.38...
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > After I have created a distribution with ISX, I'd like to
distribute
> > > only
> > > > > one executable installation file.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ok with WINZIP and WINZIP-SE to make only on EXE, and I
> haven't
> > > see
> > > > > any other solution with only InstallShield.
> > > > >
> > > > > Problem is that it is a long process to Winzip manually, specially
> > when
> > > > > there is several "disks".
> > > > > With old PKZIP I was able manage to automate the process, but now
I
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > make 32 bits exe with and long names files.
> > > > >
> > > > > I bought WinZip 8 for this reason, but I don't find any command
line
> > or
> > > > > command file to make it automatic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could program a tool my self with some ZIP components, 32 bits
> > > compliant
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > But I cannot believe that there is no ready-to-use solution !
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
12-14-2000, 01:00 AM
Yikes!

Isn't the auto repair feature in Windows Installer supposed to automatically
let the user know that the file is missing and repair it all by itself?!

I basically decided to stick with version 2.13. Version 3 seems like too
much trouble.

I will reevaluate when Visual Studio.NET comes out - with a new Microsoft
Installer front end. Hopefully, they will have enough customization
features where I would be able to move to that. If not, I will probably
have to go with install maker or Wise.

Ofer.

"rpotash" <rich@csmisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:39f21c9d$1@12.41.20.38...
> I've returned 3.01 and gone back to 2.13. A number of features I use were
> dropped in 3.01, e.g. the ability to specify update on date only. Also if
a
> user deleted a file associated with our application, they would have to do
> an uninstall and then re-install (confirmed by tech support). They could
not
> just re-run the setup.
>
> "Rolf Hentrich" <hentrich.r@bigfoot.de> wrote in message
> news:39dbac60$1@12.41.20.38...
> > I spent a few hours today with testing the WISE IB8.1 Eval
> > - I was able to rebuild my installation package within 2 hours
> > - Now I'm already trying out some "advanced" features
> > - Language support exists for de,en,fr,es,it
> > - WISE is much faster in compiling and building
> > - It needs less memory (8MB) while ISX3.02 took up to 50MB under NT4
> > - I can use scripts to customize my installs AND rund them in debug
mode!
> >
> > MOST IMPORTANT: Everything worked as expected. No trial and error....
> >
> > When I think about how much time that would have saved for me......
> >
> > Well, I still have to make some tests on different machines with
different
> > OS (not possible with the EVAL, need full product first).
> > However, I don't expect any problems as from what I have seen up to now.
> >
> > I wrote a letter to IS Germany complaining about all the problems.
> > They reacted very quick.
> > However, they refused a refund because I have exceeded the 30 day limit
> and
> > said
> > "You should have talked to us earlier..:". "We would have helped you..:"
> > They only offered me a voucher which I can use to buy "future" IS
> products.
> >
> > ... I know what I have to think about that ...
> >
> > I have ordered WISE IB 8.1 now!
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Rolf
> >
> > P.S.
> > I also tested CreateInstaller2000 and SEAU.
> > Not bad, but also not really what I'm looking for.
> > WISE fits my needs best up to now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
12-22-2000, 01:00 AM
Why not use PackageForTheWeb 3.0?
Last time I looked InstallShield were giving this away from their
web-site as a service to existing customers (although they didn't
actually ask for any proof of this). This creates one single executable
file from your IS Express project or you can specify any files that you
want to include. Go to http://www.installshield.com/pftw/ and download
it for free.

By the way, Winzip 8.0 has an additional Command Line Support Add-on
available at no extra charge if you have a registered copy of Winzip.
Have a look on their web site at http://www.winzip.com

HTH, Kevin



"Herbie" <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> wrote in message
news:3a23ff4f$1@12.41.20.38...
Martin

For your info, I have been doing this with 2.1
while the "Copy to Floppy" dialog is displayed on the screen, click on
the
"Help" button. When the help comes up click on the "self-extracting
single
file installation" link. Works just the way advertised.

You can also accomplish what you are doing through installedShield
Express
as well.

Herbie
"Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
news:39f34f57@12.41.20.38...
> NO, it is not a part of 2.13
> I have made my own utility to move all disk images in one directory.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> 39ec8c25$1@12.41.20.38...
> >
> > Not Sure, But I think it is part of 2.12 as well..
> >
> > "Martin RODOT" <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> > news:39e6b2df@12.41.20.38...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I have only 2.12 and I do not know how to find a
free
> 2.13.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Herbie <Herbie_Herbert@Fws.Gov> a écrit dans le message :
> > > 39e4b3d8$1@12.41.20.38...
> > > > What version of Express? I use 2.13. When you select"Copy to
disk",
> > > under
> > > > the drop down list for Drive, there is an option to create
single
> > > executable
> > > > file. You do not have the option to provide a name, but you can
> specifiy
> > > the
> > > > location. You can rename it after creation. When you double
click
on
> > the
> > > > file it starts the installation.
> > > >
> > > > Herbie
> > > > Martin RODOT <MRodot@mrit.qom> wrote in message
> > > news:39e40d6a@12.41.20.38...
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > After I have created a distribution with ISX, I'd like to
distribute
> > > only
> > > > > one executable installation file.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ok with WINZIP and WINZIP-SE to make only on EXE, and I
> haven't
> > > see
> > > > > any other solution with only InstallShield.
> > > > >
> > > > > Problem is that it is a long process to Winzip manually,
specially
> > when
> > > > > there is several "disks".
> > > > > With old PKZIP I was able manage to automate the process, but
now
I
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > make 32 bits exe with and long names files.
> > > > >
> > > > > I bought WinZip 8 for this reason, but I don't find any
command
line
> > or
> > > > > command file to make it automatic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could program a tool my self with some ZIP components, 32
bits
> > > compliant
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > But I cannot believe that there is no ready-to-use solution !
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
01-03-2001, 01:00 AM
This is bug of MDAC itself. Give below is an extract from the Microsoft
knowledge base.

"FIX: MDAC 2.5 Configuration Dialog Appears After Every Restart

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The information in this article applies to:

Microsoft Data Access Components version 2.5, on platform(s):
Microsoft Windows 95
Microsoft Windows 98
the operating system: Microsoft Windows NT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
IMPORTANT: This article contains information about editing the registry.
Before you edit the registry, make sure you understand how to restore it if
a problem occurs. For information about how to do this, view the "Restoring
the Registry" Help topic in Regedit.exe or the "Restoring a Registry Key"
Help topic in Regedt32.exe.


SYMPTOMS
After you install Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.5 on a Microsoft
Windows 95/98 or Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 computer, a dialog box appears
after every restart, indicating that the MDAC components are being
configured.

On Windows 95 computers, the wallpaper may also be removed.



RESOLUTION
This dialog box is harmless, but misleading, because the MDAC components
completed their configuration after the first restart, and there is no
further configuration to be done.

Steps to prevent this dialog box from appearing:
Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).


Locate the entry named mdac_runonce under the following key in the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
The value of this entry should be similar to the following:


C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\runonce.exe
Click the mdac_runonce entry to highlight it. From the Edit menu, click
Delete, and then click Yes if you are prompted to confirm the deletion.


Quit Registry Editor.


If you are redistributing MDAC 2.5 with a software installation package, a
supported fix is available that removes this value from the registry. To
obtain a copy of this fix, contact Microsoft Product Support Service. For a
complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers and
information on support costs, please go to the following address on the
World Wide Web:
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/overview.asp
The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes or
later:

Date Size File name
-------------------------------------
5/12/00 4096 bytes Rem_dlg.inf
This fix can be distributed with software installation packages that require
the installation of MDAC 2.5, and can be used by automated installer
software to remove the registry key. It is recommended that you perform at
least one restart before you execute the Rem_dlg.inf file.

This fix is included in MDAC 2.6.



STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in the Microsoft products
listed at the beginning of this article.

This problem was corrected in MDAC 2.6.


Additional query words: mdac 2.5 dialog box reboot setup configure
configuration registry wallpaper

Keywords : kbDatabase kbMDAC kbGrpVCDB kbGrpMDAC kbDSupport kbMDAC250bug
kbMDAC260fix
Issue type : kbbug
Technology : kbOSWinNT kbOSWinSearch "


"DG" <gansberger@bison.co.at> wrote in message news:3a531c66@12.41.20.38...
>
> "HM" <h.mous@bens.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3a34ef35@12.41.20.38...
> > I've made an installation with isx 3 for a VB6-app wich uses mdac and
> dcom.
> > the installation runs fine but on windows 95 machines the background is
> > removed from the desktop. This happens everytime the computer is
started.
> > This problem does not happen when I make an installation for an VB
> > application without mdac/dcom. Any suggestions
> >
> > HM
> >
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I have the same problem.
>
> ISX 3 , VB6-App and MDAC
>
> After every reboot the wallpaper changes. (just in Windows 95)
> Also after every reboot Windows tries to install a component (no name is
> shown) ?!?
>
> ????????????????
>
> regards,
>
> DG
>
>
>
>
>
>

NewsArchive
01-09-2001, 01:00 AM
thanx a lot!!!

"Chandima Rajakaruna" <no reply@installshield.com> wrote in message
news:3a538b0d$1@12.41.20.38...
> This is bug of MDAC itself. Give below is an extract from the Microsoft
> knowledge base.
>
> "FIX: MDAC 2.5 Configuration Dialog Appears After Every Restart
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> The information in this article applies to:
>
> Microsoft Data Access Components version 2.5, on platform(s):
> Microsoft Windows 95
> Microsoft Windows 98
> the operating system: Microsoft Windows NT
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> IMPORTANT: This article contains information about editing the registry.
> Before you edit the registry, make sure you understand how to restore it
if
> a problem occurs. For information about how to do this, view the
"Restoring
> the Registry" Help topic in Regedit.exe or the "Restoring a Registry Key"
> Help topic in Regedt32.exe.
>
>
> SYMPTOMS
> After you install Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.5 on a
Microsoft
> Windows 95/98 or Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 computer, a dialog box appears
> after every restart, indicating that the MDAC components are being
> configured.
>
> On Windows 95 computers, the wallpaper may also be removed.
>
>
>
> RESOLUTION
> This dialog box is harmless, but misleading, because the MDAC components
> completed their configuration after the first restart, and there is no
> further configuration to be done.
>
> Steps to prevent this dialog box from appearing:
> Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).
>
>
> Locate the entry named mdac_runonce under the following key in the
registry:
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
> The value of this entry should be similar to the following:
>
>
> C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\runonce.exe
> Click the mdac_runonce entry to highlight it. From the Edit menu, click
> Delete, and then click Yes if you are prompted to confirm the deletion.
>
>
> Quit Registry Editor.
>
>
> If you are redistributing MDAC 2.5 with a software installation package, a
> supported fix is available that removes this value from the registry. To
> obtain a copy of this fix, contact Microsoft Product Support Service. For
a
> complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers and
> information on support costs, please go to the following address on the
> World Wide Web:
> http://support.microsoft.com/directory/overview.asp
> The English version of this fix should have the following file attributes
or
> later:
>
> Date Size File name
> -------------------------------------
> 5/12/00 4096 bytes Rem_dlg.inf
> This fix can be distributed with software installation packages that
require
> the installation of MDAC 2.5, and can be used by automated installer
> software to remove the registry key. It is recommended that you perform at
> least one restart before you execute the Rem_dlg.inf file.
>
> This fix is included in MDAC 2.6.
>
>
>
> STATUS
> Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in the Microsoft products
> listed at the beginning of this article.
>
> This problem was corrected in MDAC 2.6.
>
>
> Additional query words: mdac 2.5 dialog box reboot setup configure
> configuration registry wallpaper
>
> Keywords : kbDatabase kbMDAC kbGrpVCDB kbGrpMDAC kbDSupport kbMDAC250bug
> kbMDAC260fix
> Issue type : kbbug
> Technology : kbOSWinNT kbOSWinSearch "
>
>
> "DG" <gansberger@bison.co.at> wrote in message
news:3a531c66@12.41.20.38...
> >
> > "HM" <h.mous@bens.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3a34ef35@12.41.20.38...
> > > I've made an installation with isx 3 for a VB6-app wich uses mdac and
> > dcom.
> > > the installation runs fine but on windows 95 machines the background
is
> > > removed from the desktop. This happens everytime the computer is
> started.
> > > This problem does not happen when I make an installation for an VB
> > > application without mdac/dcom. Any suggestions
> > >
> > > HM
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have the same problem.
> >
> > ISX 3 , VB6-App and MDAC
> >
> > After every reboot the wallpaper changes. (just in Windows 95)
> > Also after every reboot Windows tries to install a component (no name is
> > shown) ?!?
> >
> > ????????????????
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > DG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

NewsArchive
08-20-2001, 12:00 AM
This issue was fixed sometime ago but apears to have got mixed up in the KB
articles. We will be making another set of MDAC, DCOM modules available
(very soon) which has this fix as well as some other fixes as well.

"Stefan Krueger" <nwsgrp@installsite.org> wrote in message
news:3b7d649e@news.installshield.com...
> Actually this may be caused by the DCOM module, not MDAC (I'm not
> sure, but try and uncheck DCOM, too to see if that removes the error)
> Which ISX version do you have?
>
> --
> Stefan Krueger - Independent Setup Consultant
>
> InstallSite - code samples, tips, tools, bug lists, and more
> http://www.installsite.org http://www.installsite.de (GERMAN)
> Support and consulting http://www.installsite.org/krueger
>
> Stefan Krueger and the InstallSite web site are not affiliated
> with InstallShield Software Corporation.
>
>
> "Lee McKenney" <lemconsult@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3b7a8229$1@news.installshield.com...
> > IS Support, please help...
> >
> > The only knowledge base article (Q105290) that I can locate
> indicates that
> > the culprit is the MDAC25.msm and happens when all OS's other than
> Windows
> > 95 are selected. I beg to differ on two points:
> >
> > 1.) I can duplicate this message reliably when OS Version - Specific
> is
> > checked. Further, it does not matter which OS(s) I include/exclude.
> >
> > 2.) The MDAC25.msm that is posted on the website is dated 2/17/2001.
> The
> > MDAC25.msm that was installed with ISX is dated 6/12/2001. Are we
> saying I
> > need to revert to an older version?
> >
> > If I choose OS Version - Any OS this error does not appear.
> > If I uncheck the reference to the MDAC25.msm this message still
> appears.
> >
> > Can we get some clarification and assistance with this? I will be
> happy to
> > help however I can.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
>