25 replies to this topic

[Alley Cat]

I located msvcrt.dl_

The versions match, XP Home.

I reformatted, DLL hell gone.

I rhymed !

[niente0]

I solved with this command:

expand C:\i386\msvcrt.dl_ C:\windows\system32

Hope it helps!

[Detection]

niente0, on 25 February 2013 - 15:00, said:

Hope it helps!

I'm sure it would have done...... 2 years ago

[Guth]

Detection, on 25 February 2013 - 15:07, said:

I'm sure it would have done...... 2 years ago

since this is bumped I wanted to ask, why are they saying "msvcrt.dl_"
whats the .dl_ all about?

[xorangekiller]

Guth, on 25 February 2013 - 15:39, said:

since this is bumped I wanted to ask, why are they saying "msvcrt.dl_"
whats the .dl_ all about?

On older versions of Windows NT (pre-Vista) Microsoft used per-file compression to keep the size of the install disk as small as possible. (This is in contrast to the way Microsoft has done compression since Vista - compressing the entire install image as one file.) Their naming convention for compressed files was to replace the last letter of the file extension with an underscore. Therefore msvcrt.dll compressed to msvcrt.dl_. Any of the compressed files on the installation disc may be expanded back to their original, uncompressed state using the expand utility built into Windows.

Therefore the One Post Wonder who necroed this thread is suggesting replacing the damaged copy of msvcrt.dll with the original one from the Windows XP installation disc. However, he is making the assumption that the i386 directory has been copied from the installation disc to the root of the C drive. While that was once common practice for many OEMs, it is far from standard. If C:\i386 doesn't exist on your machine, you could substitute the path for your CD drive (i.e. D:\i386 or E:\i386) once you have inserted your original Windows XP installation disc.

In general in a situation where you need to replace a corrupt file installed on your system with a good copy from the Windows installation disc, it is probably better to run an SFC scan than to expand the file manually. System File Checker will check to make sure that each Windows system file is valid and replace it automatically if not. (It does still require your Windows installation disc, however.) As an additional advantage, while you cannot replace individual system files in Windows Vista and later the same way you could in earlier versions of Windows due to Vista's more modern installation method, SFC is supported by Microsoft and has been included with every version of Windows since Windows 2000. Enter the following command at an administrator command prompt to initiate an SFC scan:

sfc /scannow

[Detection]

xorangekiller, on 25 February 2013 - 16:21, said:

On older versions of Windows NT (pre-Vista) Microsoft used per-file compression to keep the size of the install disk as small as possible. (This is in contrast to the way Microsoft has done compression since Vista - compressing the entire install image as one file.) Their naming convention for compressed files was to replace the last letter of the file extension with an underscore. Therefore msvcrt.dll compressed to msvcrt.dl_. Any of the compressed files on the installation disc may be expanded back to their original, uncompressed state using the expand utility built into Windows.

sfc /scannow

It's still done now, check AMD driver folder

[Guth]

thanks for the reply guys.
I knew about sfc but I didnt know that the .dl_ meant it was compressed.
I see what you are saying but why? why rename it? whats wrong with a compressed msvcrt.dll? Is it just so that its easy to tell whats compressed and what isn't?

[xorangekiller]

Detection, on 25 February 2013 - 16:27, said:

It's still done now, check AMD driver folder

I was not trying to claim that no one compresses files that way anymore. It is absolutely still done. When Microsoft depreciates a technology they will still support it 20 years (give or take a decade). They are very good about maintaining legacy support. My claim is that the aforementioned method of compression is no longer used on Windows installation discs (since Vista). Driver manufacturers are free to package their code however they see fit. In fact, full image compression (similar to what Microsoft uses on modern Windows installation discs) wouldn't make much sense for installation or backup files which are rarely accessed but may need to be decompressed individually.

Guth, on 25 February 2013 - 20:16, said:

Is it just so that its easy to tell whats compressed and what isn't?

That's it exactly. File extensions are just a way to assoicate files with programs that can manipulate them. They have no more significance than that.

[+techbeck]

Whenever I find a missing DLL on an old system, I am always able to find it by doing a Google search and downloading hte file.

[xorangekiller]

techbeck, on 25 February 2013 - 21:49, said:

Whenever I find a missing DLL on an old system, I am always able to find it by doing a Google search and downloading hte file.

That sounds like an exceptionally terrible approach, especially if the library in question shipped with Windows. It is very easy to end up with much bigger system problems by downloading an incompatible version of the library. Not to mention that fact that I'm not sure I trust the vast majority of the "DLL DOWNLOAD!" sites on the Internet; they just look shady. Unfortunately those websites exist because many people do exactly that: Google the DLL and download a copy from the first website in the search results.

[+techbeck]

xorangekiller, on 25 February 2013 - 22:01, said:

That sounds like an exceptionally terrible approach, especially if the library in question shipped with Windows. It is very easy to end up with much bigger system problems by downloading an incompatible version of the library. Not to mention that fact that I'm not sure I trust the vast majority of the "DLL DOWNLOAD!" sites on the Internet; they just look shady. Unfortunately those websites exist because many people do exactly that: Google the DLL and download a copy from the first website in the search results.

Always worked for me. No virus, no malware, no system issues. Lots of good trustworthy site out there. If you cannot find the file anywhere else, what other choice do you have.

Plus, I know how to tell a shady site for a good one. So its not an issue for me.,