«

Is there a good reference on this topic? Although the System File Checker
can flag issues with DLLs, it is not clear that one would want to mess with
changing the file or use an older DLL from the original CD.

What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?
Thanks.
j

"j" <> wrote in message
news:1qednUcKVJfYWCveRVn-...
> Is there a good reference on this topic? Although the System File Checker
> can flag issues with DLLs, it is not clear that one would want to mess
> with
> changing the file or use an older DLL from the original CD.
>
> What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?

That would be to stay out of DLL Hell and leave things alone unless you have
a reason to be messing with one and you know what you're doing.

Duane

In article <1qednUcKVJfYWCveRVn->, <>
wrote:

> Is there a good reference on this topic? Although the System File Checker
> can flag issues with DLLs, it is not clear that one would want to mess with
> changing the file or use an older DLL from the original CD.
>
> What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?

Like all other system files, you just leave them alone.
Look at it this way -- you don't mess with ANYTHING on the system
except the data files. Your own data files, like text and images and
sounds and such, are the things you open and edit and change -- and
EVERYTHING else, you assume are the organs your computer needs to work,
and leave them alone.

The best protection you can give them is to protect your system from
"malware" like viruses and worms and trojans. Brace it with a firewall.
And learn safe user habits, like not opening attachments without
checking the filename extension and not loading HTML in e-mail.

j wrote:

....
> What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?
> Thanks.
> j
_Never_ do daily work as administrator, that will keep them safe and
up-to-date. You know, you can "run as" with the shift-key pressed and just
enter the admin credentials when you _really_ need?

Happy New Year!
--
vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse detected penguin patterns
on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
Linux 2.6.12-mm2 [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]

Walter Mautner wrote:
>
> j wrote:
> > What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?

Dont install shoddy ware.




--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Hi Plato,

I consider this a good point. If the software was written with poor quality
assurance the new dll might get hosed as you indicate.

Thanks.

(How does Apple get around these issues?...I wonder.)

J


"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:43b71f6c$0$479$...
> Walter Mautner wrote:
> >
> > j wrote:
> > > What is the best practice for keeping the DLLs correct?
>
> Dont install shoddy ware.
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.bootdisk.com/
>
>

"j" <> wrote in message
news:m-idnWq5caFMqyXeRVn-...
> Hi Plato,
>
> I consider this a good point. If the software was written with poor
> quality
> assurance the new dll might get hosed as you indicate.
>

Common DLL(s) used by various applications are not shoddy. The only thing
that can happen is an older version of a common DLL could be installed by
some 3rd party application that broke other applications that were using a
specific function in that common DLL that is no longer there or is there but
doesn't have the right interface other applications expect to interface with
that DLL.

3rd party software vendors who make DLL(s) that have specific functions for
an application they have developed are not going to be making DLL(s) that
break other applications only that application it works with.

Duane

j wrote:
>
> I consider this a good point. If the software was written with poor quality
> assurance the new dll might get hosed as you indicate.
>
> (How does Apple get around these issues?...I wonder.)

Way less apps written for apple, perhaps.

In article <m-idnWq5caFMqyXeRVn->, <>
wrote:

> I consider this a good point. If the software was written with poor quality
> assurance the new dll might get hosed as you indicate.
>
> Thanks.
>
> (How does Apple get around these issues?...I wonder.)

Apple never let software publishers make changes to the actual system
files. There is never any problem with different DLLs if you weren't
allowed to alter the DLL that needed to be there in the first place.

The worst I can recall dealing with under Mac OS was where an
application tried to call an extension that conflicted with another
third-party extension. It often took several steps to discover which
pair were in conflict, and if no new version was available, set the
system up to load in two different ways.

Another simple example was a game installer that didn't follow Apple's
versions-checking step, and installed QuickTime even if a newer version
was already installed. At the time (1994-ish), the system didn't
protect the System Folder, so the next startup would give a QT
conflicting version error. Solving it was a simple matter of removing
the two or three older files, since everyone knew where QT extensions
were. Or installing the newer QT again, which would delete older parts.