FYI: Downloadable VB6 MS Common Control Hotfix
Randy Birch
FIX: The Windows Common Controls Mscomctl.ocx or Comctl32.ocx may cause your
application or the Visual Basic 6 IDE to unexpectedly quit, or you may
receive a "Divide By Zero" error message.
APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Professional Edition
• Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Enterprise Edition
• Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Grier
--
Richard Grier (Microsoft Visual Basic MVP)
See www.hardandsoftware.net for contact information.
Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, 4th
Edition ISBN 1-890422-28-2 (391 pages) published July 2004. See
www.mabry.com/vbpgser4 to order.
RB Smissaert
RBS
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Wl%23dR5SF...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Ulrich Korndoerfer
Dick Grier wrote:
> Yeah, that's when it is needed.
>
That contradicts the page's saying:
APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Professional Edition
• Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Enterprise Edition
• Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5
So MS publishes a patch for a control which does fix a misbehaviour
(list view header reorder) the control shows when used with VB SP6.
Accompanying they say that the patch applies to VB versions of SP5?
--
Ulrich Korndoerfer
VB tips, helpers, solutions -> http://www.proSource.de/Downloads/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plea for a bright future for VB classic.
Sign the petition to Microsoft: -> http://classicvb.org/petition/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Grier
I "think" that SP5 should say SP5/SP6. However, that's an assumption on my
part.
Ulrich Korndoerfer
Dick Grier wrote:
> I "think" that SP5 should say SP5/SP6. However, that's an assumption on my
> part.
I think it should say SP6, as the fix would not be necessary for the
control if it is running under SP5.
Now, its MS and it is not the first time for me that I stand shaking my
head when reading their "messages" :-)
AGP
"A supported fix is available from Microsoft for Visual Basic 6 SP6. " so
maybe they did err on the supported versions
to fix.
AGP
"Ulrich Korndoerfer" <ulrich_wa...@prosource.de> wrote in message
news:42716C91...@prosource.de...
Ken Halter
>
> FIX: The Windows Common Controls Mscomctl.ocx or Comctl32.ocx may cause
> your
> application or the Visual Basic 6 IDE to unexpectedly quit, or you may
> receive a "Divide By Zero" error message.
> APPLIES TO
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Professional Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Enterprise Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5
>
From that page....
"RESOLUTION
Important note: If the application that you are running was provided to you
by a third party, you may want to contact the third party that provided the
application to you before you install the fix. For example, you did not
develop the application yourself. If you install this fix without sufficient
testing, the applications may stop functioning."
...any reports of breakage yet? I wonder what broke on their PCs that would
prompt them to add that note... hmmm...
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition
Please keep all discussions in the groups..
Rick Rothstein
[Rick, wildly waving his hands, trying to get everyone's attention]
Excuse me! Uh, there was also this note in the cited Fix page:
"Note: The enclosed fix cannot be uninstalled or removed after it is
installed."
Now, this might seem like a stupid question but... what the hell are we
supposed to do with this fix??!!!? Think about it. If we are using a 3rd
party application, we shouldn't apply the fix because it might break.
Uh, isn't almost everything we run on our system provided by a 3rd
party? Is Microsoft saying these programs might stop working if we fix
our system so that we can continue developing VB6 programs (that use
ListView I guess)? Now that is a hell of a trade-off for Microsoft to
impose on us! Yep, it sure looks more and more like Microsoft will do
whatever it can to make people stop using VB.Classic, doesn't it? Do
they really think this is the way to convince us developer that
Microsoft languages are the ones we should continue investing our
efforts on in the future? Give me a f***ing break here. Also, what if
that 3rd party vendor is no longer in business (say his/her application
works flawlessly, but he/she has "moved on")? What should we do then?
WHAT THE HELL KIND OF A FIX IS THIS ANYWAY??!!!!??!!!!
Hopefully I have read this situation all wrong and someone will post
back correcting my thoughts on this.
Rick
Randy Birch
with the expectation there would be an entry in add/remove programs if
issues arose. I'm sure any competent developer could unregister/delete
mscomctl.ocx and comcl32.ocx and re-register earlier versions.
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Rothstein" <rickNOS...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:uSgwHoGT...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
:> > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896559
:
Rick Rothstein
mentioned DLL's were the only things changed in this Fix? Simply
unregistering/deleting and re-registering them may not be
well-coordinated way to uninstall the Fix. Also, if that is all it would
take, and since the Fix is directed at VB6 developers, you would think
the Note about the Fix not being uninstallable could have been left off.
I still think a Fix that might work here but not over there is a
terrible thing to foist on us. And, of course, if this proves to be a
major problem, then we are at Microsoft's mercy to perform an
out-of-support fix for the fix. Haven't we been waiting for something
like that for the SP6 release?
Rick
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OANl73GT...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Jim Carlock
file as well. SFC/WFP will likely attempt to correct and then complain and
ask you to reinsert your Original CD.
You can download the update from the link. PowerArchiver or WinZip
will be able to uncompress the executable.
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896559
Microsoft doesn't want to come out and say that WFP/SFC is the worst
idea they've ever put into effect, and it doesn't look like they want to tell
you how to get around it and make it public knowledge to everyone for
some reason.
comctl32.dll is found inside sfcfiles.dll as a protected file, but mscomctl.ocx
is not. So you'd only have to worry about comctl32.dll I think (to get around
the WFP/SFC problems).
--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
"Rick Rothstein" <rickNOS...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
You may be right; but I'm skeptical. First off, how do you know the two
mentioned DLL's were the only things changed in this Fix? Simply
unregistering/deleting and re-registering them may not be
well-coordinated way to uninstall the Fix. Also, if that is all it would
take, and since the Fix is directed at VB6 developers, you would think
the Note about the Fix not being uninstallable could have been left off.
I still think a Fix that might work here but not over there is a
terrible thing to foist on us. And, of course, if this proves to be a
major problem, then we are at Microsoft's mercy to perform an
out-of-support fix for the fix. Haven't we been waiting for something
like that for the SP6 release?
Rick
Randy Birch
ADVPACK.DLL
comctl32.ocx
KB896559.TXT
mscmupd.inf
mscomctl.ocx
W95INF16.DLL
W95INF32.DLL
The ADVPACK.DLL file is from 2002, as are the last two DLLs.
mscomctl.ocx is version 6.1.97.86, dated November 1, 2004 which puts it
around the time we initially raised the issue with the listview with MS.
A bug in comctl32.ocx show an incorrect date of August 18, 19103. The
version on my machine (which has VB6 SP5)is dated October 11, 1999 installed
with a version number of 6.0.81.5. The version of the fix comctl32 file is
6.0.81.6.
The INF file simply installs the two OCX files:
; INF file for Visual Basic 6.0 Run-time Redist Pack
[DefaultInstall]
CheckAdminRights=1
CopyFiles=install.files,install.file
[DestinationDirs]
install.files=11
install.file=11
[install.files]
MSCOMCTL.OCX,,MSCOMCTL.OCX,1064;
COMCTL32.OCX,,COMCTL32.OCX,1064;
[install.file]
KB896559.TXT,,KB896559.TXT,4;
[KB896559.TXT]
file-win32-x86=thiscab
[MSCOMCTL.OCX]
file-win32-x86=thiscab
FileVersion=6,1,97,86
[COMCTL32.OCX]
file-win32-x86=thiscab
FileVersion=6,0,81,6
[version]
signature="$CHICAGO$"
AdvancedINF=2.5,%BadAdvpackVer%
[SourceDisksNames]
1="default",,1
[Strings]
BadAdvpackVer="This setup requires a newer version of the Setup API"
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Rothstein" <rickNOS...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:OebIJEHT...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: You may be right; but I'm skeptical. First off, how do you know the two
: > :
: >
:
Randy Birch
it's a simple:
The Microsoft COMCTL32.OCX AND MSCOMCTL.OCX Controls accompanying this
End-User License Agreement are provided by Microsoft to update validly
licensed copies of Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 and Microsoft Visual Studio
6.0. These controls are also being provided as a standalone software web
download. If you have a validly licensed copy of Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0
or Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 (each a "Microsoft Product"), these controls
are provided to you by Microsoft Corporation to update the Redist.txt
portion of such Microsoft Products and are subject to the terms and
conditions of the applicable end-user license agreement under which you
validly licensed the Microsoft Product.
If you don't own VB, you're an end user and a standard end-user EULA
applies, which is too big and typically legal to include here.
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Rothstein" <rickNOS...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:OebIJEHT...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: You may be right; but I'm skeptical. First off, how do you know the two
: > :
: >
:
Randy Birch
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote in message
news:u$U%23NQHTF...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: There are the problems with DLLCache and other storage locations of the
Jim Carlock
listed as protected files inside sfcfiles.dll. Sorry about the confusion. Both
of the files in the update are ocx files. They both wrappers to comctl32.dll?
Disregard my previous post. I just deleted both of the files to see if they're
protected. And neither one of the files are protected on an XP system.
When I did the search through sfcfiles.dll I was searching for comctl32 and
for mscomctl. Comctl32 turned up but I wasn't paying too much attention,
it's a .dll and the files that are updated are both .ocx.
--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
Randy Birch
the functionality of the DLL into the OCX rather than make it dependent on
the DLL, which is why a VB5 common control under XP with a manifest will
display using Windows themed appearance naturally, while the VB6 controls
remain, well, VB6-ish.
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote in message
news:OHjclcHT...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: Oops. It's comctl32.ocx that is the new file. So neither one of the files
:
:
:
Jim Carlock
It's when you view the Comments in the file properties that you see the
strange date: August 18, 19103. Does anything ever use that (the
Comments)?
--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
Rick Rothstein
Rick
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OeFrhQHT...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Mark Yudkin
896559 supercedes 841999, but fails to say so in the APPLIES TO.
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Wl%23dR5SF...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Jim Carlock
bug with the listview control seems to be fixed.
The following was tested:
Under Project, Components,
Microsoft Windows Common Controls 6.0 (SP6)
Filename: C:\WINDOWS\system32\mscomctl.ocx
File Version: 6.01.97.86
Mod Date: Friday, April 15, 2005, 7:58:16 PM
The code used on a form with a listview control named lvMain:
Option Explicit
Private Const MIN_WIDTH As Long = 4800&
Private Const MIN_HEIGHT As Long = 3600&
Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim itmX As ListItem
With lvMain
.Visible = False
.Appearance = ccFlat
.AllowColumnReorder = True
.FlatScrollBar = True
.View = lvwReport
.Sorted = False
.ColumnHeaders.Add , , "Test3"
.ColumnHeaders.Add , , "Test4"
.Appearance = ccFlat
.View = lvwReport
'no rows yet
Dim ir As Long, ic As Long, sR As String, sC As String
Dim sRow As String, sItem As String
sRow = "Row": sItem = "Item"
For ir = 1 To 138000
'ten rows
sR = Format$(CStr(ir), "0000000")
Set itmX = .ListItems.Add(, , (sRow & sR & " " & sItem & CStr(1)))
For ic = 2 To 4
sC = CStr(ic)
'four columns already built
If ic = 1 Then
Else
'itmX.SubItems(1) = "Row1Item2"
'itmX.SubItems(2) = "Row1Item3"
'itmX.SubItems(3) = "Row1Item4"
itmX.SubItems(ic - 1) = (sRow & sR & " " & sItem & sC)
End If
Next ic
Next ir
'.ListItems.Item(0).Text = "Item1"
'.ListItems.Item(1).Text = "Item2"
.Visible = True
End With
End Sub
Private Sub Form_Resize()
Dim h As Long, w As Long
'4800 4605
w = Me.Width
'3600 2535
h = Me.Height
If w <= MIN_WIDTH Then
Me.Enabled = False
w = MIN_WIDTH
End If
If h <= MIN_HEIGHT Then
Me.Enabled = False
h = MIN_HEIGHT
End If
With lvMain
Call .Move(.Left, .Top, (w - 195), (h - 1065))
End With
With Me
Call .Move(.Left, .Top, w, h)
.Enabled = True
End With
End Sub
The only thing I currently have a problem with (that I'm noticing), is that
I'm missing a scrollbar. I was thinking it should automatically appear. It
automatically appears if .FlatScrollBar is set to False, but it does NOT
appear when it's set to true.
--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
Ken Halter
> Testing the new mscomctl.ocx running on XP SP2, and the column reordering
> bug with the listview control seems to be fixed.
>
>
> that
> I'm missing a scrollbar. I was thinking it should automatically appear. It
> automatically appears if .FlatScrollBar is set to False, but it does NOT
> appear when it's set to true.
>
> --
> Jim Carlock
> Please post replies to newsgroup.
FlatScrollbar support has always had problems <g> To me, the real question
is.... what apps did it break?...and, if we package this thing up and deploy
it, who's PC's gonna get trashed? <g>
Text below's a repost from yesterday if you missed it....
From that page....
"RESOLUTION
Important note: If the application that you are running was provided to you
by a third party, you may want to contact the third party that provided the
application to you before you install the fix. For example, you did not
develop the application yourself. If you install this fix without sufficient
testing, the applications may stop functioning."
...any reports of breakage yet? I wonder what broke on their PCs that would
prompt them to add that note... hmmm...
--
Dick Grier
The control was changed from SP5 to SP6 (and broken). Thus, my supposition
that this should refer to both service packs.
Dick
Ulrich Korndoerfer
Dick Grier wrote:
> ...
> The control was changed from SP5 to SP6 (and broken). Thus, my supposition
> that this should refer to both service packs.
I never installed SP6 and did no research on which SP changed which
controls (especially the VB6 control Mscomctl.ocx). So:
- There was a new version of the control coming with SP5?
- Then there was another version of the control coming with SP6 (which
broke things)?
- Now they spit out a new standalone (not embedded in a SP) version
being capable of what? Running under SP5 and SP6 (without breaking things)?
If they would do things right, then above should be correct.
Wonder (as others do) why then to include this "important note":
"If the application that you are running was provided to you by a third
party, you may want to contact the third party that provided the
application to you before you install the fix. For example, you did not
develop the application yourself. If you install this fix without
sufficient testing, the applications may stop functioning."
May be they wrote this for the case of someone, using SP6 for his app,
has worked around the SP6/Mscomctl.ocx flaws such that the updated
current version now would break the app due to the work around.
Then the question would be: which kind of work around could break apps
when the latest version of the control is used?
I love MS because they always are clear in their sentences. They do not
intermingle marketing speak with developer documentation. They tell the
plain, understandable, truth on what they do and why they do ;-)
Jim Carlock
a manifest file for XP systems (and maybe Win2003) to fix the problem.
My complaint is that Microsoft "MADE" Explorer.exe and IExplorer.exe
do all the overhead XML parsing without providing a way to turn it off
(that I know of). XP systems will read the contents of the file and the
folder the file resides in before actually executing the executable or
presenting the data. The XML manifest can be configured as the first
resource within the app or placed as an external manifest file in the same
folder as the app. More overhead involved when starting an application.
Not only does Explorer.exe read the contents of a an executable file,
but Internet Explorer reads the contents of ALL files before presenting
the file. It's not the extension that determines things any longer. If IE sees
XML code inside of document with a .txt extension, it will parse the full
file until it errors or completes it's XML parsing. IE might run code
within the file. Internet Explorer will balk and choke on a .txt file if it
encounters an XML document with non-IE specific XML encoding.
By the way, does anyone know if there is a list of uses for XML, sets
of commands or whatnot?
If your app was named LVTest, then you'd need a (silly) manifest
named, "LVTest.exe.manifest" and the contents would read as:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0">
<assemblyIdentity
version="1.0.0.0"
processorArchitecture="X86"
name="LVTest"
type="win32"
/>
<description>Manifest for LVTest.exe</description>
<dependency>
<dependentAssembly>
<assemblyIdentity
type="win32"
name="Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls"
version="6.0.0.0"
processorArchitecture="X86"
publicKeyToken="6595b64144ccf1df"
language="*" />
</dependentAssembly>
</dependency>
</assembly>
That's only for the column re-ordering problem described here (that
I know of, maybe it fixed other problems too - I didn't track that).
Hope that helps.
--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
Dick Grier
>>
- There was a new version of the control coming with SP5?
<<
I didn't say that. I don't know.
>>
"If the application that you are running was provided to you by a third
party, you may want to contact the third party that provided the
application to you before you install the fix. For example, you did not
develop the application yourself. If you install this fix without
sufficient testing, the applications may stop functioning."
<<
This is CYA (read: lawyer, not programmer-ese).
RB Smissaert
Having VB6 Pro and having applied SP6 is it advisable to run this patch?
Not sure it makes a difference, but I am coding in Offcice 2002 as well.
RBS
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Wl%23dR5SF...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896559
>
> FIX: The Windows Common Controls Mscomctl.ocx or Comctl32.ocx may cause
> your
> application or the Visual Basic 6 IDE to unexpectedly quit, or you may
> receive a "Divide By Zero" error message.
> APPLIES TO
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Professional Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Enterprise Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5
>
>
>
Randy Birch
I would.
RB Smissaert
RBS
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OUoDy3sT...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Bob O`Bob
> I love MS because they always are clear in their sentences. They do not
> intermingle marketing speak with developer documentation. They tell the
> plain, understandable, truth on what they do and why they do ;-)
>
Yeah, something like that.
Bob
Mark Yudkin
find the merge module correspoonding to this fix. Any idea where it is?
"Randy Birch" <rgb_rem...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OUoDy3sT...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Randy Birch
meant to be either applied on a case-by-case basis, or used to replace the
files in the system folder and the redist folder on the development machine
so the controls would be included in an installation package.
--
Randy Birch
MS MVP Visual Basic
http://vbnet.mvps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read. Decide. Sign the petition to Microsoft.
http://classicvb.org/petition/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcom...@boing.org> wrote in message
news:uv%23O6S6T...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: We distribute our app using MSI, meaning we use the merge module. I can't
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
Mark Yudkin
>I don't recall seeing the merge module for the hotfix. I suspect this is
> meant to be either applied on a case-by-case basis, or used to replace the
> files in the system folder and the redist folder on the development
> machine
> so the controls would be included in an installation package.
Merely replacing the control on the build systems will not result in the MSI
retreiving it, as the redistributable files are part and parcel of the MSM,
they are not picked up dynamically. The end result is that we would end up
testing with the fix, then the users crash as they don't have it, and we go
crazy as we can't reproduce the bug they're reporting.
Whilst this might not be considered a problem with only one known file
version incompatibility, consider what would happen if all of the
redistributable component fixes were to to be distributed in such an
unprofessional manner.
What worries me most, is that normally I'd just open a case with MS to get
the MSM updated. But the first paragraph:
"Mainstream Support for Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 ended on March 31, 2005.
Microsoft is releasing this package that is unrelated to security because it
contains improvements that were ready for release just before the end of
Mainstream Support. Visual Basic 6.0 has transitioned to Extended Support,
and Extended Support runs through March 31, 2008. Microsoft is not extending
the Mainstream Support phase for Visual Basic 6.0 in any way."
basically says, if I open a case, I'll get told that it's May, and support
has ended and is not being extended "in any way".
Unicorn
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=896559
>
> FIX: The Windows Common Controls Mscomctl.ocx or Comctl32.ocx may cause your
> application or the Visual Basic 6 IDE to unexpectedly quit, or you may
> receive a "Divide By Zero" error message.
> APPLIES TO
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Professional Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 Enterprise Edition
> • Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 5
>
>
>
I had given up all hope when the support date came and went and no patch
appeared
Matt