Vista "compliant" application is installing ADO components in Syst

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by djacks, Jul 18, 2007.

  1. djacks

    djacks Guest

    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, Jul 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. djacks

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    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.
    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, Jul 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. djacks

    djacks Guest

    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, Jul 18, 2007
    #3
  4. djacks

    djacks Guest

    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, Jul 18, 2007
    #4
  5. djacks

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    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.

    ..
     
    Mr. Arnold, Jul 18, 2007
    #5
  6. djacks

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    <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, Jul 18, 2007
    #6
  7. djacks

    djacks Guest

    :

    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...
     
    djacks, Jul 18, 2007
    #7
  8. djacks

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    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.
    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.
    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/w...are-that-are-certified-for-windows-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, Jul 18, 2007
    #8
  9. djacks

    djacks Guest

    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..
     
    djacks, Jul 19, 2007
    #9
  10. djacks

    Mr. Arnold Guest

    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.
     
    Mr. Arnold, Jul 19, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.