Vista "compliant" application is installing ADO components in Syst

I have a application which carries the "Designed for Vista logo.
When I install this application, I noticed that it installed a file
MSAD025.TLB into the Windows\system 32 folder.

My understanding is that this file is part of ADO - and that only Microsoft
should be updating ADO (in Vista) and even then it has to be a complete
upgrade of all ADO files - not piecemeal.

In Windows Vista, ADO seems to be installed in Program Files\Common
Files\System\ADO - where there is already a MSAD025.TLB file.

I immediately un-installed the application and it rolled back the installed
files.

Should a Vista based application be attempting to install an individual ADO
file into \system32?? If not - what permits it to carry the "Designed for
logo"??

Any help would be appreciated on this.

"djacks" <> wrote in message
news:B4CCF992-2D7A-4532-A506-...
>I have a application which carries the "Designed for Vista logo.
> When I install this application, I noticed that it installed a file
> MSAD025.TLB into the Windows\system 32 folder.
>
> My understanding is that this file is part of ADO - and that only
> Microsoft
> should be updating ADO (in Vista) and even then it has to be a complete
> upgrade of all ADO files - not piecemeal.
>
> In Windows Vista, ADO seems to be installed in Program Files\Common
> Files\System\ADO - where there is already a MSAD025.TLB file.
>
> I immediately un-installed the application and it rolled back the
> installed
> files.

It seems to be doing the correct thing.

A software developer doesn't know what program elements/components you have
on your machine at the time of said application/program deployment and
install.

So, the developer in creating the setup/install package to install the
solution is going to include all program elements/components needed to make
the program work, whether or not elements already exist or don't exist on
the machine. If the element already exist on the machine and there is one in
the setup package, then the one in the setup package is going to replace the
existing one on the machine.
>
> Should a Vista based application be attempting to install an individual
> ADO
> file into \system32?? If not - what permits it to carry the "Designed for
> logo"??

I would assume that the Vista logo is a indication the solution is Vista
compatible and safe to install on the machine running the Vista O/S.

"Mr. Arnold" wrote:

>
> "djacks" <> wrote in message
> news:B4CCF992-2D7A-4532-A506-...
> >I have a application which carries the "Designed for Vista logo.
> > When I install this application, I noticed that it installed a file
> > MSAD025.TLB into the Windows\system 32 folder.
> >
> > My understanding is that this file is part of ADO - and that only
> > Microsoft
> > should be updating ADO (in Vista) and even then it has to be a complete
> > upgrade of all ADO files - not piecemeal.
> >
> > In Windows Vista, ADO seems to be installed in Program Files\Common
> > Files\System\ADO - where there is already a MSAD025.TLB file.
> >
> > I immediately un-installed the application and it rolled back the
> > installed
> > files.
>
> It seems to be doing the correct thing.
>
> A software developer doesn't know what program elements/components you have
> on your machine at the time of said application/program deployment and
> install.
>
> So, the developer in creating the setup/install package to install the
> solution is going to include all program elements/components needed to make
> the program work, whether or not elements already exist or don't exist on
> the machine. If the element already exist on the machine and there is one in
> the setup package, then the one in the setup package is going to replace the
> existing one on the machine.
> >
> > Should a Vista based application be attempting to install an individual
> > ADO
> > file into \system32?? If not - what permits it to carry the "Designed for
> > logo"??
>
> I would assume that the Vista logo is a indication the solution is Vista
> compatible and safe to install on the machine running the Vista O/S.
>
>

I bellieve the packaged application ios a legacy from XP. Whereas under
Vista, ADO is pre-installed as part of the Operating System.
I am not convinced that a MSADOxxx file should be being copied into System32
as it has NOT replaced that which the OS installed (nor would I expect it
to). ADO is installed into a totally different directory in Vista..

"djacks" wrote:

>
>
> "Mr. Arnold" wrote:
>
> >
> > "djacks" <> wrote in message
> > news:B4CCF992-2D7A-4532-A506-...
> > >I have a application which carries the "Designed for Vista logo.
> > > When I install this application, I noticed that it installed a file
> > > MSAD025.TLB into the Windows\system 32 folder.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this file is part of ADO - and that only
> > > Microsoft
> > > should be updating ADO (in Vista) and even then it has to be a complete
> > > upgrade of all ADO files - not piecemeal.
> > >
> > > In Windows Vista, ADO seems to be installed in Program Files\Common
> > > Files\System\ADO - where there is already a MSAD025.TLB file.
> > >
> > > I immediately un-installed the application and it rolled back the
> > > installed
> > > files.
> >
> > It seems to be doing the correct thing.
> >
> > A software developer doesn't know what program elements/components you have
> > on your machine at the time of said application/program deployment and
> > install.
> >
> > So, the developer in creating the setup/install package to install the
> > solution is going to include all program elements/components needed to make
> > the program work, whether or not elements already exist or don't exist on
> > the machine. If the element already exist on the machine and there is one in
> > the setup package, then the one in the setup package is going to replace the
> > existing one on the machine.
> > >
> > > Should a Vista based application be attempting to install an individual
> > > ADO
> > > file into \system32?? If not - what permits it to carry the "Designed for
> > > logo"??
> >
> > I would assume that the Vista logo is a indication the solution is Vista
> > compatible and safe to install on the machine running the Vista O/S.
> >
> >
>
> I bellieve the packaged application ios a legacy from XP. Whereas under
> Vista, ADO is pre-installed as part of the Operating System.
> I am not convinced that a MSADOxxx file should be being copied into System32
> as it has NOT replaced that which the OS installed (nor would I expect it
> to). ADO is installed into a totally different directory in Vista..
>

I found this text in MSDN regarding Data Access Components.

quote:
Windows Data Access Components (Windows DAC) 6.0 is a set of technologies
included in Microsoft Windows Vista to provide access to information across
the enterprise. These technologies include Microsoft ActiveX Data Objects
(ADO), OLE DB, and Microsoft Open Database Connectivity (ODBC). Data-driven
client/server applications deployed over the Web or a LAN can use these
components to easily integrate information from a variety of sources, both
relational (SQL) and non-relational.


So why would an application try to install a MASD0xxx file in \System32 when
it already exists and is managed by Microsoft directly in the ADO directory.
The Vista application should be able to assume that all Data Access
Components already exist and not screw around trying to install odd system
files...

"djacks" <> wrote in message
news:77D76F86-B396-4B96-83EC-...
>
>
> "Mr. Arnold" wrote:
>
>>
>> "djacks" <> wrote in message
>> news:B4CCF992-2D7A-4532-A506-...
>> >I have a application which carries the "Designed for Vista logo.
>> > When I install this application, I noticed that it installed a file
>> > MSAD025.TLB into the Windows\system 32 folder.
>> >
>> > My understanding is that this file is part of ADO - and that only
>> > Microsoft
>> > should be updating ADO (in Vista) and even then it has to be a complete
>> > upgrade of all ADO files - not piecemeal.
>> >
>> > In Windows Vista, ADO seems to be installed in Program Files\Common
>> > Files\System\ADO - where there is already a MSAD025.TLB file.
>> >
>> > I immediately un-installed the application and it rolled back the
>> > installed
>> > files.
>>
>> It seems to be doing the correct thing.
>>
>> A software developer doesn't know what program elements/components you
>> have
>> on your machine at the time of said application/program deployment and
>> install.
>>
>> So, the developer in creating the setup/install package to install the
>> solution is going to include all program elements/components needed to
>> make
>> the program work, whether or not elements already exist or don't exist on
>> the machine. If the element already exist on the machine and there is one
>> in
>> the setup package, then the one in the setup package is going to replace
>> the
>> existing one on the machine.
>> >
>> > Should a Vista based application be attempting to install an individual
>> > ADO
>> > file into \system32?? If not - what permits it to carry the "Designed
>> > for
>> > logo"??
>>
>> I would assume that the Vista logo is a indication the solution is Vista
>> compatible and safe to install on the machine running the Vista O/S.
>>
>>
>
> I bellieve the packaged application ios a legacy from XP. Whereas under
> Vista, ADO is pre-installed as part of the Operating System.
> I am not convinced that a MSADOxxx file should be being copied into
> System32
> as it has NOT replaced that which the OS installed (nor would I expect it
> to). ADO is installed into a totally different directory in Vista..
>

ADO is not an O/S component, just like .NET 2.0 Framework in not part of the
O/S, but is deployed with the Vista O/S in this case. The O/S doesn't need
ADO to function.

ADO is a programming component that provides 3rd party vendor solutions
called providers to provide their routines in a common solution/format ---
vendors like MS SQL Server, MS Access, Oracle, Sybase, Btrive and many other
types of provider solutions to access data with (ACCESS DATA OBJECT). A
programmer use ADO to ACCESS data in program language code.

A TBL is not even a program. A TBL is a definition file that defines the
methods in a matching named DLL.

If it's got the Vista logo, the software developer or company is NOT going
to provide a solution that's a using XP elements to run on the Vista
platform.

They are no more going to do this than the Man in the Moon in providing Win
2K elements to be deployed to the XP platform or XP to be deployed to a Win
2K platform, as an example.

It's going to be application developed and tested using elements on the
Vista O/S to be deployed to the Vista platform, XP to XP, and Win 2k to Win
2k, etc., etc.

I the programmer, I don't know what elements you have or your machine or
not. For all I know, the elements that I may need may not even work on the
machine. I am going to make sure, because the elements in my setup package
do work and the program works with the elements I supply which have been
tested on the intended platform to be deployed.

If its got the Vista logo then it's intoned for Vista. The solution SHOULD
NOT contain components that are NOT Vista compatible components.

However, nothing is 100 percent, because Human Beings are involved. So, you
do want. After all, it's your machine.

..

<clean-up from other post>

However, nothing is 100 percent, because Human Beings are involved. So, you
do what you want. After all, it's your machine.

"Mr. Arnold" wrote:


> ADO is not an O/S component, just like .NET 2.0 Framework in not part of the
> O/S, but is deployed with the Vista O/S in this case. The O/S doesn't need
> ADO to function.
>
> ADO is a programming component that provides 3rd party vendor solutions
> called providers to provide their routines in a common solution/format ---
> vendors like MS SQL Server, MS Access, Oracle, Sybase, Btrive and many other
> types of provider solutions to access data with (ACCESS DATA OBJECT). A
> programmer use ADO to ACCESS data in program language code.
>
> A TBL is not even a program. A TBL is a definition file that defines the
> methods in a matching named DLL.
>
> If it's got the Vista logo, the software developer or company is NOT going
> to provide a solution that's a using XP elements to run on the Vista
> platform.
>
> They are no more going to do this than the Man in the Moon in providing Win
> 2K elements to be deployed to the XP platform or XP to be deployed to a Win
> 2K platform, as an example.
>
> It's going to be application developed and tested using elements on the
> Vista O/S to be deployed to the Vista platform, XP to XP, and Win 2k to Win
> 2k, etc., etc.
>
> I the programmer, I don't know what elements you have or your machine or
> not. For all I know, the elements that I may need may not even work on the
> machine. I am going to make sure, because the elements in my setup package
> do work and the program works with the elements I supply which have been
> tested on the intended platform to be deployed.
>
> If its got the Vista logo then it's intoned for Vista. The solution SHOULD
> NOT contain components that are NOT Vista compatible components.
>
> However, nothing is 100 percent, because Human Beings are involved. So, you
> do want. After all, it's your machine.
>

I understand that ADO is not a part of the OS but it is pre-installed at the
time Vista was installed.

My concern is why would the application be opting to install its own copy of
MSAAD0235.TBL into the \SYstem32 folder when the rest of ADO is installed in
a Vista specific folder ?

Secondly, despite the application advertising the "Designed for Vista" logo
- it is writing to files stored in the Ptogram Files folder and the
Application website provides various 'workarounds' to get around the Vista
restrictions for this.

Their website states the following:

"So far, 100% of problems relating to Vista have been traced to issues
relating to Vista's new security mechanism. We are currently reengineering
much of our software to be more compatible with Vista's security scheme right
'out of the box', but the basic reality is that if you give Vista the right
permission settings, our software should work fine." end quote.

Having to ' reengineer" does not seem to imply "designed for Vista"....!!

Hence why I am not 100% certain that their installer should be installing
this MSAD025.TBL into the System32 folder. It may have been legitimate to do
so in XP...

<snipped>

>
> I understand that ADO is not a part of the OS but it is pre-installed at
> the
> time Vista was installed.
>
> My concern is why would the application be opting to install its own copy
> of
> MSAAD0235.TBL into the \SYstem32 folder when the rest of ADO is installed
> in
> a Vista specific folder ?

Why don't you call the manufacture of the product and ask them? The System32
folder is not dedicated to anything per say, and things can be installed
into it so that the O/S can find it without giving some kind of pathing.

>
> Secondly, despite the application advertising the "Designed for Vista"
> logo
> - it is writing to files stored in the Ptogram Files folder and the
> Application website provides various 'workarounds' to get around the Vista
> restrictions for this.
>
> Their website states the following:
>
> "So far, 100% of problems relating to Vista have been traced to issues
> relating to Vista's new security mechanism. We are currently reengineering
> much of our software to be more compatible with Vista's security scheme
> right
> 'out of the box', but the basic reality is that if you give Vista the
> right
> permission settings, our software should work fine." end quote.

So? The software has to be completely compliant with Vista's security
scheme. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean that the solution itself nor the elements
being used in the solution are not Vista compliant, in its ability execute
on the Vista platform. It only means the solution has user account
permission issues that may be preventing it from executing properly that
will be dealt with in a subsequent or update release of the software.

>
> Having to ' reengineer" does not seem to imply "designed for
> Vista"....!!
>
> Hence why I am not 100% certain that their installer should be installing
> this MSAD025.TBL into the System32 folder. It may have been legitimate to
> do
> so in XP...

What are you talking about? Me as a programmer, because that's what I have
been doing since 1980 is write program solution and started doing this in on
the MS platform in 1996 would say I got base code that worked on XP. I have
tested it to work on the XP platform.

Now, Vista comes along, and I have to now take the base code that was XP
make another copy of it and now make the same solution work on Vista. Now, I
have the base code and solution that works on XP dedicated to the XP
platform, and I have a base code and solution for Vista dedicated for Vista.
That's what the word *reengineer* means in this case.

I myself would have no problem in installing that software (whatever it is)
on my Vista machine and going on about my business, if the software has the
Vista logo on the software package or somehow indicates that it has the
Vista certified.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...ows-vista.aspx

Nothing against you personally, but I don't know what you are talking about,
and you don't either.

Like I said, it's your machine, and you do with what you want to keep
yourself happy, because after all it's your machine.

"Mr. Arnold" wrote:

> <snipped>
>
> >
> > I understand that ADO is not a part of the OS but it is pre-installed at
> > the
> > time Vista was installed.
> >
> > My concern is why would the application be opting to install its own copy
> > of
> > MSAAD0235.TBL into the \SYstem32 folder when the rest of ADO is installed
> > in
> > a Vista specific folder ?
>
> Why don't you call the manufacture of the product and ask them? The System32
> folder is not dedicated to anything per say, and things can be installed
> into it so that the O/S can find it without giving some kind of pathing.
>
> >
> > Secondly, despite the application advertising the "Designed for Vista"
> > logo
> > - it is writing to files stored in the Ptogram Files folder and the
> > Application website provides various 'workarounds' to get around the Vista
> > restrictions for this.
> >
> > Their website states the following:
> >
> > "So far, 100% of problems relating to Vista have been traced to issues
> > relating to Vista's new security mechanism. We are currently reengineering
> > much of our software to be more compatible with Vista's security scheme
> > right
> > 'out of the box', but the basic reality is that if you give Vista the
> > right
> > permission settings, our software should work fine." end quote.
>
> So? The software has to be completely compliant with Vista's security
> scheme. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean that the solution itself nor the elements
> being used in the solution are not Vista compliant, in its ability execute
> on the Vista platform. It only means the solution has user account
> permission issues that may be preventing it from executing properly that
> will be dealt with in a subsequent or update release of the software.
>
> >
> > Having to ' reengineer" does not seem to imply "designed for
> > Vista"....!!
> >
> > Hence why I am not 100% certain that their installer should be installing
> > this MSAD025.TBL into the System32 folder. It may have been legitimate to
> > do
> > so in XP...
>
> What are you talking about? Me as a programmer, because that's what I have
> been doing since 1980 is write program solution and started doing this in on
> the MS platform in 1996 would say I got base code that worked on XP. I have
> tested it to work on the XP platform.
>
> Now, Vista comes along, and I have to now take the base code that was XP
> make another copy of it and now make the same solution work on Vista. Now, I
> have the base code and solution that works on XP dedicated to the XP
> platform, and I have a base code and solution for Vista dedicated for Vista.
> That's what the word *reengineer* means in this case.
>
> I myself would have no problem in installing that software (whatever it is)
> on my Vista machine and going on about my business, if the software has the
> Vista logo on the software package or somehow indicates that it has the
> Vista certified.
>
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...ows-vista.aspx
>
> Nothing against you personally, but I don't know what you are talking about,
> and you don't either.
>
> Like I said, it's your machine, and you do with what you want to keep
> yourself happy, because after all it's your machine.
>
>

quote "What are you talking about? Me as a programmer, because that's what I
have
been doing since 1980"

I beat you by 6 years..

What I stated which you seem to have misread/overlooked, is that this
particular application is already displaying the "Designed for Vista Logo"
but at the same time, the application website is stating that they will be
re-engineering the application in the coming months to allow the product to
'work out of the box" in a Vista environment..
Currently, having to disable Vista Security requirements etc can hardly
constitute being "Designed for Vista" - in my humble opinion. End of topic
I think..

>
> What I stated which you seem to have misread/overlooked, is that this
> particular application is already displaying the "Designed for Vista Logo"
> but at the same time, the application website is stating that they will be
> re-engineering the application in the coming months to allow the product
> to
> 'work out of the box" in a Vista environment..

I have not missed anything. It is you who is the one that has missed it with
your constant paranoia.

End it with a call to the developer/vendor and find out one way or the
other or DON'T install it PERIOD. But in either case, stop playing PERRY
MASON with me, because this doesn't mean anything to me, and you can't make
a CASE.

It only matters to you, with your paranoia issues, because after all and
I'll repeat it for you, IT'S YOUR MACHINE DO WITH IT WHAT YOU WANT you're
the one sitting behind the keyboard and mouse and not ME.

Your head is ten bricks hard, and I am through with this conversation. It
has turned moot. It's your bed lay in it anyway can and go to SLEEP.

BTW, I started in IT in 1971 so I got you by four.