Visual C++ Redistributable Question

[LHutton]

I had the latest version of this all working but when you download from Origin (or other), for some reason it downloads and installs every version under the sun. So I uninstalled them and put the latest one back on, but now I get a mfc120u.dll missing error on startup?

Any fix?

[thesameguy]

Yes. Stop fucking with things you don't fully understand.

[LHutton]

Heh. Well the problem is, if you have a shit load of versions it can cause problems with Java updates.

[thesameguy]

I'd be interested to know why you think that. I have never heard of that - which isn't to say it isn't true, but I've never encountered it nor do I see how it would be possible. Some Java-related activities rely on the C++ modules, but like any application they should only invoke the versions and such that they specifically need. I'm not immediately aware how too many versions of the C++ modules could cause problems with anything. That is counter-intuitive to how they are designed, installed, and implemented. But, in terms of things that suck the JVM is high on the list. Talk about total bullshit implementation of a product. I have to maintain three virtual machines because the JVM version that Cisco ADSM requires is different than the JVM OpenManage requires and both are so old nothing current works with either. Fuck Java.

[LHutton]

Do a search under 'Java installer could not verify the integrity of C++ redistributable'.

[thesameguy]

That does not appear to return any results related to too many versions of the redistributable. Lots of results of people installing the wrong version of Java, installing the versions out of order (x64 before x32), and people with actually corrupted filesystems. Can you point me to something specific?

[LHutton]

I take it you work for Microsoft.

[thesameguy]

I have nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. Just trying to get to the root of your problem, but if you don't care enough to post a link I certainly don't care enough look any harder than I have. I typically get paid to fix stuff, and you're not paying.

[LHutton]

No one would pay for Windows if there was a choice.

[thesameguy]

If you say so. :shrug:

[overpowered]

Software typically has dependencies upon specific versions of libraries. You probably have software that depends upon an older version and won't work with a newer version.

Libraries can easily lose compatibility across versions. You should have left the old ones.

[Rare White Ape]

I think you should start with a clean slate and install Windows 10. Everything just works so easily for me.

[LHutton]

Software typically has dependencies upon specific versions of libraries. You probably have software that depends upon an older version and won't work with a newer version.

Libraries can easily lose compatibility across versions. You should have left the old ones.
I have done, did a system restore and then downloaded the newer version. The only problem is that the older ones were not downloaded in order because they came with games and I didn't know what was included until they'd finished. The problem was that Java didn't update with the old versions installed and that was the fix. It's all the usual compatibility BS, but I found a way to keep the Java update through the system restore. People write software that works on say Windows 7 or 8.1 and then MS comes out with a new version and things stop working. It's just a lack of system testing/continuity. Most people say Windows 10 is still at beta stage.

It works fine but it's just a very obstructive OS in terms of what it lets the user do. As the owner of the PC, I expect to be the one in charge of it. In relation to my problem with MSI Afterburner, I'm not alone, and it works fine on Windows 7 and 8.1.

Oh and lest we forget, Visual C++ is yet another Microsoft product that lacks backwards compatibility, hence the eleventy versions required.

[LHutton]

I think you should start with a clean slate and install Windows 10. Everything just works so easily for me.
Heh, there's absolutely no fucking way I'm starting again. It's taken long enough to get to here, exacerbated by the lovely Windows system of having to restart the PC 80 times during installs. A simple system restore should have fixed it, assuming that feature actually works properly.

[thesameguy]

Oh and lest we forget, Visual C++ is yet another Microsoft product that lacks backwards compatibility, hence the eleventy versions required.

Everything else you said was at least defensible even if questionable, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how software and its development actually works. I explained it, OP explained it, and you simply refuse to wrap your noggin around it.

So, I'm out. Good luck and God speed.

[LHutton]

Everything else you said was at least defensible even if questionable, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how software and its development actually works. I explained it, OP explained it, and you simply refuse to wrap your noggin around it.

So, I'm out. Good luck and God speed.
Hate to break it to you but I know all about STLs. You only break backwards compatibility if you take libraries out, or change them to either exclude or rename the elements. I appreciate there are different versions of C++ across the board, but one company using it for their OS shouldn't have compiler anomalies between different versions.

[overpowered]

one company using it for their OS shouldn't have compiler anomalies between different versions.You haven't worked with a lot of software installation issues have you?

[Jacee]

LH, this might help you to better understand your problem: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/multiple-visual-c-redistributables-needed/e533cd40-8712-4803-8a31-316c83a5bc88?auth=1

[LHutton]

LH, this might help you to better understand your problem: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/multiple-visual-c-redistributables-needed/e533cd40-8712-4803-8a31-316c83a5bc88?auth=1
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, security issues are the reason for the changes, which seems like the only reasonable reason for such changes. Thank you for providing a good explanation. Problem is, if some packages are still using older versions, then don't the security issues still exist?

On the plus side, I can see Windows 10 being very secure, because it simply doesn't let anyone change anything, even the computer's owner. I guess so far I've been complaining about relatively minor issues on software that I don't really need to run, and can still run manually. Maybe in the long run that'll be outweighed by security improvements. I've subscribed to Malwarebytes AM Premium, so hopefully that will also help.

[overpowered]

I'd be interested to know why you think that. I have never heard of that - which isn't to say it isn't true, but I've never encountered it nor do I see how it would be possible. Some Java-related activities rely on the C++ modules, but like any application they should only invoke the versions and such that they specifically need. I'm not immediately aware how too many versions of the C++ modules could cause problems with anything. That is counter-intuitive to how they are designed, installed, and implemented. But, in terms of things that suck the JVM is high on the list. Talk about total bullshit implementation of a product. I have to maintain three virtual machines because the JVM version that Cisco ADSM requires is different than the JVM OpenManage requires and both are so old nothing current works with either. Fuck Java.It's unusual in my experience to find older Java software that won't run on a newer JVM. The JVM's try very hard to be backward compatible with old byte code. Something from the Java API pretty much has to be completely deleted, which is not common and in the rare cases it does happen, it's usually for something that almost nobody used anyway.

Of course the reason for a requirement doesn't necessarily have to be technical capability. Security stuff often demands the version that they certified or they invalidate the certification.

[thesameguy]

It is indeed unusual, it's just shit programming on Cisco's part. Shit programming to the point that certain versions of ASDM can do things other versions can't. It's completely awful. Here's a specific example - not mine, but indicative of the problem:

https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/639052-asdm-launcher-java-issues

A whole thread of people of posting workarounds to get ASDM to work with newer versions of Java. It's so bad.

My other application is a report generator on a security appliance that, in all likelihood, relies on Java insecurities to work. If you update to a newer version where those holes are plugged, it doesn't work. So bad.