MS C++ redistributable x86 and x64 -- multiple versions

[BonzaiDuck]

I have another question pending about this, but it's too long and nobody has chosen to answer it. this one is more focused on the problem-at-hand.

Not sure best which forum to use for this question, but Windows 7 has a feature called "Side-By-Side," and this feature manages redistributable MFC or other libraries included in the C++ redistributable (x86 and x64) of versions 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2012.

I am currently trying to eliminate a "side-by-side" (red) error in my Application Log (Event Viewer). This error makes clear that it happens every time I load Nuance PaperPort 14, and it is likely related to the redistributable DLL-etc. libraries I find installed on my system -- more about that following this error description:

Log Name: Application
Source: SideBySide
Date: 3/18/2014 12:30:08 AM
Event ID : 80
Task Category: None
Level: Error
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: MyComputer
Description:
Activation context generation failed for "C : Program Files (x86)\Nuance\PaperPort\CheckPPFolders.exe".Error in manifest or policy file "" on line . A component version required by the application conflicts with another component version already active. Conflicting components are:. Component 1: C : Windows\WinSxS\manifests\x86_microsoft.windows.common-controls_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.7601.17514_none_41e6975e2bd6f2b2.manifest. Component 2: C : Windows\WinSxS\manifests\amd64_microsoft.windows.common-controls_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.7601.17514_none_fa396087175ac9ac.manifest.

When I examine "Programs & Features" in Control Panel, I see that there are two different installations of the C++ redistributable for 2005; there are several for the x64 and x86 versions for 2008, etc. etc. It appears that these things accumulate with new software installations.

I've seen some forum posters at other sites noting they regularly install the newest sub-versions of redistributables directly from Microsoft, and there are other indications at Microsoft that one might uninstall an earlier sub-version and then install its later subversion. So if there were two versions showing in Programs & FEatures for the 2005 (x86) redistributable, I might uninstall both of these and then install the latest download of the x86-2005 package from MS.

Does this seem like a safe idea? Are there some procedural caveats I should follow? I'm hoping I won't be unpleasantly surprised for having to uninstall then reinstall software that uses these libraries.

Thanks.

 

[Imaginer]

The libraries are pretty much standalone that work with other software that need it.

Uninstalling and using a different re-distributable, should pose no inherent problem from my understanding. If anything else, you can revert back to your previous re-distributable.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The libraries are pretty much standalone that work with other software that need it.

Uninstalling and using a different re-distributable, should pose no inherent problem from my understanding. If anything else, you can revert back to your previous re-distributable.

I'm just trying to be careful in my laziness. As I said in another post, some "authorities" think it's a great idea to simply reinstall the OS once a year -- with all your software, drivers and about anything else you can think of. Even for preparation-- building inventory lists and piling up the install DVDs while backing up downloaded software purchases -- it could take longer than a weekend.

the other approach was to insert your original Win 7 install disc, and within Windows, run setup and choose "Upgrade." This would refresh the OS while keeping all your old settings, software installs and so on, but you'd likely have to reinstall drivers at a minimum.

So if my OS isn't corrupted, I want to fix everything. And replacing all the accumulated C++ Redistributable x86 and x64 versions appears to be the way to go.

I just don't want any unpleasant surprises . . .

 

[Imaginer]

I'm just trying to be careful in my laziness. As I said in another post, some "authorities" think it's a great idea to simply reinstall the OS once a year

I did not listen to such. I once took that practice back in Windows 95, 98, and early XP days, but since then from XP to 7, I had a straight upgrade with no issues.

7 to 8 was also a straight upgrade.

In the past, especially with my video card experience, is that some ATi installs have to remove everything of the old driver to place in new ones, because of the different organization of the used libraries and files to the workings of files that may come conflict.

It is otherwise no different than third party software that makes such a transition or if the third party makes a version change.

So if my OS isn't corrupted, I want to fix everything. And replacing all the accumulated C++ Redistributable x86 and x64 versions appears to be the way to go.

I just don't want any unpleasant surprises . . .

I had to uninstall a 2010 redistributable to install a software, because with the 2010 redistributable in place, the installer would not get past a point to continue. So, if anything else, if replacing a previous redistributable with a newer version that supersedes the old one would not hurt - and rolling back is much easier than a "clean install".

And these re-distributables are meant to be stand alone as I mentioned. Pretty much needed if a third party takes advantage of additional put forth libraries.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I did not listen to such. I once took that practice back in Windows 95, 98, and early XP days, but since then from XP to 7, I had a straight upgrade with no issues.

7 to 8 was also a straight upgrade.

In the past, especially with my video card experience, is that some ATi installs have to remove everything of the old driver to place in new ones, because of the different organization of the used libraries and files to the workings of files that may come conflict.

It is otherwise no different than third party software that makes such a transition or if the third party makes a version change.



I had to uninstall a 2010 redistributable to install a software, because with the 2010 redistributable in place, the installer would not get past a point to continue. So, if anything else, if replacing a previous redistributable with a newer version that supersedes the old one would not hurt - and rolling back is much easier than a "clean install".

And these re-distributables are meant to be stand alone as I mentioned. Pretty much needed if a third party takes advantage of additional put forth libraries.

Thanks for your comments.

This all started because I had worries about hard-disk corruption arising from other hardware/driver problems I was trying to identify. I likely got rid of the occasional trouble, but was concerned about the OS installation after its 30-months age. I ran CHKDSK -- couldn't find anything. Ran SFC /SCANNOW: it turns up a "missing MFC80.DLL" file. This is, of course, a component of one of the redistributable installs.

what I think happened was an installation early in the game (late 2011) of a software package or version that wasn't really compatible with Win 7. How I got rid of it, I can't remember either, but it may not have been done through "Programs & Features" of Control Panel. Better yet, (I think I had that ass-backward), I installed some program that is buried in the lengthy Start->Programs list -- which I don't remember and don't use.

Everything else works fine. And other folks who ran the SFC program turned up a similar problem with some instance of MFC80.DLL. The "missing" version seems to be benign. I've cleaned up most of the red-bang errors in my Event Viewer logs to the point that the logs are mostly clean and "blue." And for resolving a "Distributed COM" error related to a network module known as "IPBusEnum," suddenly my internet access and other types of networking are much faster.

 

[MadScientist]

BD,
If I recall correctly, I too am up in SS age, you and I built are computers within a few months of each other back in 2011. I added an SSD drive a few months later and re-installed the OS. I have not re-installed it since then. This has been a very stable system, no BSODs.
I ran a SFC /SCANNOW and it came up clean.

Maybe this will be helpful.
From Control Panel/Programs and Features here's the Visual C++ that are on my computer:


Did a search of C drive for the MFC80.DLL file. This is what it found:

2 of the MFC80.DLL files are the 8.0.50727.762 versions, both appear to be 64 bit files, Microsoft Visual Studios 2005, date modified 6/27/11, different times.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

BD,
If I recall correctly, I too am up in SS age, you and I built are computers within a few months of each other back in 2011. I added an SSD drive a few months later and re-installed the OS. I have not re-installed it since then. This has been a very stable system, no BSODs.
I ran a SFC /SCANNOW and it came up clean.

Maybe this will be helpful.
. . . . .

2 of the MFC80.DLL files are the 8.0.50727.762 versions, both appear to be 64 bit files, Microsoft Visual Studios 2005, date modified 6/27/11, different times.

That's interesting. The one SFC declares "missing" is a 32-bit item for that version. Today, I found the C++ redistrib 2005 8.0.50727.762 download at MS and attempted to install it. But . . . it doesn't install! The progress bar zips across the screen until the message box disappears -- and nothing shows up as an additional version in "Programs & Features." Looking more closely, the 32-bit package for that version shows only OS relevance through XP in its details on the website.

Somehow, way back then (2011), I think -- as I may have said -- I installed some dated software that may have added those files. This might have been the same plight as the forum-poster I mentioned.

But this missing (so-called) MFC80.DLL 32-bit hasn't been the source of my BSODs -- those had been hardware-driver-related.

Of course, it's a vicious circle. If BSODs occur for some reason, there is a risk of HDD corruption. If the OS becomes corrupted, the corruption can cause BSODs.

But except for a missing DLL that I apparently don't need (because I have all the later 32 and 64-bit versions installed) -- I don't see any corruption. I just see vestiges of this . . . thing . . . . likely in the registry because it turns up with the SFC scan. CCleaner gives it a clean bill of health. Nothing -- effectively -- is otherwise wrong.

I might just go forward with the "Upgrade" install-refresh. I dread having to reinstall drivers, profiles, various things. And I'm still thinking it would be largely unnecessary. You see a fly in the ointment, and you want to get it out. An obsession, likely.

 

[MadScientist]

I was going to suggest a re-install of the OS but since it's such a PITA I only do that as a last resort, but in your case I don't think you need to.

But in case you decide to go that way you can download windows updates from here: http://www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com/Default.aspx
Download the Windows Updates Downloader, install, and then download the correct UL file. When presented with the option to open or save, simply open the UL and it will automatically install itself in the WUD program folder.
And if you need a Windows 7 iso with SP1 installed you can get it here: http://www.mydigitallife.info/official-windows-7-sp1-iso-from-digital-river/
The last slipstreamed Windows 7 disk I made I used RT7 Lite but the author's website is dead. It's still available here: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Boot-Manager-Disk/RT-Seven-Lite.shtml

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I was going to suggest a re-install of the OS but since it's such a PITA I only do that as a last resort, but in your case I don't think you need to.

But in case you decide to go that way you can download windows updates from here: http://www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com/Default.aspx
Download the Windows Updates Downloader, install, and then download the correct UL file. When presented with the option to open or save, simply open the UL and it will automatically install itself in the WUD program folder.
And if you need a Windows 7 iso with SP1 installed you can get it here: http://www.mydigitallife.info/official-windows-7-sp1-iso-from-digital-river/
The last slipstreamed Windows 7 disk I made I used RT7 Lite but the author's website is dead. It's still available here: http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Boot-Manager-Disk/RT-Seven-Lite.shtml

Mad, Man! You are an absolute prince -- scholar and a gentleman!

Any better automation of that process is like horse-drawn versus bullet-train.

But -- FLASH!! -- **** has happened! I cleaned up all but one "red bang" entry in my Event Viewer logs. The last one was the commonly experienced "Cannot start CIR Receiver service . . .[yada yada] . . . device not connected." This had been a feature in the Hauppauge tuners -- like my 2250. The solution involved simply running their "HWClear" program -- a utility to scrape up all the traces of a prior Hauppauge installation. Then -- reinstalling the driver. The first indication I had of this was about ten days ago, but the blogger wasn't clear in his discussion. It sounded like "Gee. I got rid of this error by completely uninstalling a device!"

Those tuner cards go back to the PVR-250, 350 and 500. I'd had them all. So it might be that I tried to install one of them -- to decide "incompatible with Windows." Then -- I got the HVR_2250. And I don't think I ran HWClear.

Next thing that happens after this wonderful progress -- Win Update comes in with a message about a "security update and KB-nnnnnn link" addressing MFC parts, a registry entry about "location," etc.

The only red-bang I have left is another common 'Session "" failed to start . . . error: 0xC000000D'. The skinny around forums and help-desks: this deals with something at startup, and I'll have to do something like a binary sort to tweak msconfig and find the culprit with a minimum trial and error -- meaning several reboots and a crippling suspension of my various startups and systray items.

Whatever it is, I can't be using it, and I'm developing a list of some couple or three suspects.

I think this system is in better shape than I am for worrying about it.