locked
msvcr80.dll Problem

    Question

  • Hi there, can someone possibly tell me why Noton WinDoctor is telling me that 10 executables in the .NET Framework 2.0 cannot access the necessary dll file msvcr80.dll? I see that the dll exists in the WinSxS directory and I'm running XP pro. I didn't have this problem until I downloaded the 2.0 framework at windows update. Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

    Naolin
    Thursday, December 08, 2005 5:33 PM

Answers

  • I tried this fix also, but I read somewhere else this post :

    Hello everyone,

    My name's Martyn Lovell, and I'm the development lead of the team that produces msvcr80.dll [The Visual C++ Libraries team]. This thread contains a number of innaccuracies that I'd like to correct.

    First, Norton WinDoctor is wrong. It incorrectly reports that msvcr80 is missing when in fact it is correctly installed in the WinSxS directly in the windows. folder. If you own WinDoctor, you should report this bug to them so that they get it fixed.

    Second, this website (http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr80) is definitely not the right place to get msvcr80.dll. You should get your copy of msvcr80.dll from the same place that you got the application that uses it. msvcr80.dll is distributed with applications.

    Third, that website actually has a beta 2 copy of msvcr80.dll, which won't work for the released versions of the .NET runtime and may cause problems if used. If you have this copy on your system, you should remove it.

    Fourth, you should not put msvcr80.dll in Anyway, I downloaded the file and put it in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727. The DLL does not belong in there, and may cause problems if used from that location.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions, as I don't read this forum regularly.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl.TakeThisOut@microsoft.com
     
     
     
     
    I hope this helps.
    Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:38 PM
  • If your application works as expected then the owenrs of WinDoctor might have more details.

    Thanks,
    Ayman Shoukry
    VC++ Team
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:51 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • having the same problem, did you get a fix for this?
    Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:45 AM
  • I am having the same problem... I even uninstalled it.. and it didnt show a problem then I reinstalled the update and it showed up as a problem in the Windoctor again... any ideas as to what is wrong with this update?? Im sure its a simple fix but I cant seem to get it..
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:13 AM
  • Are you sure that WinDoctor is right?
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:08 AM
    Moderator
  • I haven't found a fix for this issue yet. Has anyone had any luck?
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:11 PM
  • Hi Martin, can you clarify on what you mean when you say, "Are you sure that WinDoctor is right?".... I know its installed correctly, up to date and functioning properly if that's what you meant.
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:22 PM
  • Norton WinDoctor is a Symantec product. From my expiriences with Symantec products I wouldn't trust it. Just my two cents.
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:29 PM
    Moderator
  • If your application works as expected then the owenrs of WinDoctor might have more details.

    Thanks,
    Ayman Shoukry
    VC++ Team
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:51 PM
    Moderator
  • Maybe WinDoctor simply has no clue about SxS assemblies ...
    Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:17 PM
    Moderator
  • I had the same problem.  I run Windows XP Media Center.  You can "search" with Windows Explorer, and you find MSVCR80.dll on your hard drive, it will not be in your SYSTEM32 folder.  "Copy" it, then open your SYSTEM32 folder and "paste" it there.  This will stop Norton from showing it as an error.  Norton searches the SYSTEM32 folder and no other, that's why you are getting the errors from WinDoctor.  This cured my errors, hope it does the same for you.

    [Moderator note: Subsequent discussion on this thread revealed that this is NOT the correct solution. Please keep reading onto the next page for responses from Microsoft's Martyn Lovell which give complete and correct information]

    Friday, December 16, 2005 8:12 PM
  • But if this fixes the problem WinDoctor works wrong with the side by side repsoitory!
    Friday, December 16, 2005 11:09 PM
    Moderator
  • hello delta579!

    You are a genius!I have been trying for months to locate the solution to this problem.well weeks.Anyways the techs at verizon and msn were absolutely no help. finally an answer to a question!Thanks.it is nice to run windoctor and only get 1 error for a change that related to hpqgreg32.dll. my  c:program files \hp\digital imaging \bin\hpqgrcpy.exe can't find my hpgreg32.dlll it needs to run. This error is causing our usb mass storage device to malfunction.Thanks again, I will try this fix for the HP after trying to add it to firewall permissions first.

     

    Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:34 AM
  • Thanks much everyone for the feedback. Sounds to me like its an inconsequential error that Norton will need to address in a future update to look for it in the correct dir. I read on an msn blog somewhere (sorry I cant find it again) that one should not put the dll in the system32 dir but from other posts it seems that it's possibly needed there for some progs to work right. The post was made by a supposed MS official so might be true. So far I haven't experienced any software malfunctions other than in windoc relating the the dll needing to be in system32 but I've also heard of it being neded for some. Only thing that bothers me is the new .NET executables that windoc says is looking for it there cant access it, but sounds like it's probably just Norton needing to update where it should be looking for them. I can put up with the windoctor errors as long as I know they mean nothing :-) Many thanks once again and Happy Holidays to each of you!

     

    Naolin

    Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:59 PM
  • This works. Thanks delta579.
    Friday, December 23, 2005 1:35 PM
  • Thank you for sharing the solution to this msvcr80.dll problem.  I had the exact same problem as everyone else and when I followed your instructions, my Norton Win Doctor found no more probems, and my machine is back to normal.

    You have really helped some people with your posting, including me!

    Sincerely,

    John Allen

     

     

    Saturday, December 24, 2005 4:04 AM
  • Hi Naolin

    I have same problem!

    Did you find out a solution to solve it?

    Please help me!

    Thanks

    Jorge

     

    Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:55 PM
  • I had the same problem and it was discovered by Norton Systemworks 2004 in WinDoctor phase of scanning.  The problem it was reporting was the 10 files listed all were looking for msvcr80.dll.  Correctly, what you need to do is search your computer "all directories" for this file.  If it finds it, left click over it and highlight it, and then right click over the highlighted area, left click "copy", and then paste it in the directory that Norton SystemWorks claims those ten files were looking for it-- which is C:\Windows\Microsoft.Net\Framework\v.2.050707.  In my case, as is probably yours, the details of problem say something like this in each of the ten problem boxes (I'll show only the first one):   the following file C:\Windows\Microsoft.net\Framework\v.2.050727\Applaunch.exe" cannot find the file "C:Windows\Microsoft.Net\Framework\v.2.050707\msvcr80.dll".  So in other words, it is looking for the file msvcr80.dll which should be in the same directory as all the other files that are looking for it.

    So Norton SystemWorks was doing a good job of informing you of a potential problem which in my case caused an occassional error from video output which in turn caused a crash and restart.  Norton SystemWorks works!!! No more problems and no more problems reported.  Hope this also helps.  Merry Christmas, GerryG

    Sunday, December 25, 2005 10:10 PM
  • Great!!! I have been going bonkers trying to fix this problem.   Thank you so much for your knowledge. God Bless you!!!
    Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:37 PM
  • That clears up the Norton problem but isn't it a bit dangerous.  If msvcr80.dll is currently where windows EXPECTS it to be and you create another copy in SYSTEM32.  What happens when microsoft updates msvcr80.dll and only replaces the copy in its "correct" location?  Do programs continue grabbing the copy that was "cloned" into SYSTEM32 and therefore get the OLD version?

    I would guess its safer to assume that if .NET is working then it must be finding msvcr80.dll in its current location.  Given that I'd click on the advanced button in Windoctor.  Then I'd right click on the msvcr80.dll entries and ask Windoctor to ignore them so they don't show up.

    Thursday, December 29, 2005 7:13 AM
  • i actually cheered when i re-scanned and saw there were no more program errors!  thank you sooooo much!
    Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:08 PM
  •    I done exactly what you said and it solved my problem. Thanks delta579
    Friday, December 30, 2005 3:34 PM
  • No, IMHO, SystemWorks is giving incorrect info - if you want to fool it into believing it is right, then that's fine too.  It's not good enough yet with WinSxS stuff. 
    Friday, December 30, 2005 3:42 PM
  • I think Ted is probably correct....check out this thread http://forums.wugnet.com/msvcr80-dll-missing-NET-ftopict445120.html
    Friday, December 30, 2005 6:07 PM
  • thanks for the tip. I'm having the same problem...I'll give your solution a try
    Friday, December 30, 2005 9:56 PM
  • Thank Delta.  I searched as you said, copied the file, re-searched for System32*.* and pasted it into the six different System32 file folders.  I reran Windoctor and it had no errors.  Thanks.
    Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:04 PM
  •  Naolin wrote:
    Hi there, can someone possibly tell me why Noton WinDoctor is telling me that 10 executables in the .NET Framework 2.0 cannot access the necessary dll file msvcr80.dll? I see that the dll exists in the WinSxS directory and I'm running XP pro. I didn't have this problem until I downloaded the 2.0 framework at windows update. Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

    Naolin

    I don't have an answer yet.  Actually, I am looling for one.

    Johan

     

     

    Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:12 PM
  •   Thank you!  It fixed my problem. -- Johan
    Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:23 PM
  • Thankx delta579 - worked like a charm. Those 10 error entries in WinDoctor are gone! Good call...have a slice on me

    SnakeMan
    Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:09 AM
  • I don't have an answer yet.  Actually, I am looling for one.

    Did you consider the possiblity that WinDoctor may be wrong? Just because it has the word doctor in it doesn't mean it's always right. Good marketing on Symantec's part, yes, but don't blindly trust your doctor, you should always get a second opinion.  

    Sunday, January 01, 2006 4:01 PM
  •   Hi delta579,

    It may not be perfect, but it sure shuts up Norton WinDoctor.  So I'm happy.

    Thank You

     

    Roger

     

    Monday, January 02, 2006 1:10 AM
  • hello coachmorrison,

    HP's solution to your problem is a choice of 1) choosing "Ignor Selected Problem"  in windoctor or 2) creating a blank text document named hpqreg32.dll in folder C:\program files\HP\Digital Imaging\bin\. I found these solutions by going to the HP website for HP All-in-One Products and searched for hpgreg32.dll.

    m brown jr

    Monday, January 02, 2006 7:50 AM
  • Just wanted to say many thanks.  You are truly a blessing.
    Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:02 PM
  • This works. Thanks delta579.
    Monday, January 09, 2006 7:34 PM
  • seems to have done the trick.  thank you. jan 10, 2006.
    Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:37 AM
  • I tried this fix also, but I read somewhere else this post :

    Hello everyone,

    My name's Martyn Lovell, and I'm the development lead of the team that produces msvcr80.dll [The Visual C++ Libraries team]. This thread contains a number of innaccuracies that I'd like to correct.

    First, Norton WinDoctor is wrong. It incorrectly reports that msvcr80 is missing when in fact it is correctly installed in the WinSxS directly in the windows. folder. If you own WinDoctor, you should report this bug to them so that they get it fixed.

    Second, this website (http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr80) is definitely not the right place to get msvcr80.dll. You should get your copy of msvcr80.dll from the same place that you got the application that uses it. msvcr80.dll is distributed with applications.

    Third, that website actually has a beta 2 copy of msvcr80.dll, which won't work for the released versions of the .NET runtime and may cause problems if used. If you have this copy on your system, you should remove it.

    Fourth, you should not put msvcr80.dll in Anyway, I downloaded the file and put it in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727. The DLL does not belong in there, and may cause problems if used from that location.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions, as I don't read this forum regularly.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl.TakeThisOut@microsoft.com
     
     
     
     
    I hope this helps.
    Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:38 PM
  •  
     
    Hi everyone. Just found this posting elsewhere and thought you all might be interested.
     
    It's a post from Martyn Lovell, lead developer.  

    Let me clarify some things

    a) Do NOT copy msvcr80, msvcp80 or msvcm80 to system32, or to the framework directory, or to the VS directory. They do not belong in any of those places.

    b) If you've already put the files in these places, please delete them.

    c) You can safely tell WinDoctor to ignore this problem. You could also let Symantec know about the problem.

    d) If you're working with Microsoft support and not getting a clear answer, have them talk to me.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions, as I don't read this forum regularly.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl DeleteThis @microsoft.com
    Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:45 PM
  • Ok, so what is the correct answer for this problem?!?!?!?! I also am suspicious of Mr. Lovell due to the fact he has listed a bogus email addy....
    Monday, January 16, 2006 5:44 PM
  • You need not be suspicious of Mr. Lovell as he a chief architect of Microsoft libraries.  It's not a bogus address, it's an address that meant to be spam proof.  See:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/

     

    Monday, January 16, 2006 6:21 PM
  • I tried to find msvcr80.dll on my hard drive and I coud not. What folder did you find it in?
    Monday, January 16, 2006 8:52 PM
  • Hello everyone,

    My name's Martyn Lovell, and I'm the development lead of the team that produces msvcr80.dll [The Visual C++ Libraries team]. There are a couple of things I'd like to clarify.

    First, Norton WinDoctor is wrong. It incorrectly reports that msvcr80 is missing when in fact it is correctly installed in the WinSxS directly in the windows. folder. If you own WinDoctor, you should report this bug to Symantec so that they get it fixed.
     
    Do NOT copy the this file to any of the folders WinDoctor recommends.

    If you've already attempted to take corrective action for this issue (by copying msvcr80.dll or msvcr80d.dll to ...\system32 or to the .NET Framework directory), please undo this. These files do not need to be copied around, and doing so may cause problems in future.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions, as I don't read this forum regularly.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl@microsoft.com

     
    Monday, January 16, 2006 9:24 PM
    Moderator
  • Just to make sure there is no ambiguity, I wanted to post again to this thread.

    a) Do NOT copy msvcr80, msvcp80 or msvcm80 to system32, or to the framework directory, or to the VS directory. They do not belong in any of those places.

    b) If you've already put the files in these places, please delete them.

    c) You can safely tell WinDoctor to ignore this problem. You could also let Symantec know about the problem.

    d) If you're working with Microsoft support and not getting a clear answer, have them talk to me.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions. Similarly, if you distrust my identity, feel free to email me directly (address below).

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl@microsoft.com

     

    Monday, January 16, 2006 11:51 PM
    Moderator
  • 1st, let me say I'm a 1st-timer & probably 1 of the least knowledgable (largely self-taught). Your tip saved me a lot of frustration, but I did find 1 small "hiccup" in the process-- following all your steps AND leaving the "new folder" designation on said new folder didn't change anything! As a "what have I got to lose?" final step, I went back & changed the title to "msvcr80.dll" & VOILA!! Maybe most of you guys knew that, but I need every step spelled out. Again, thanks for the solution.
    Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:01 AM
  • malpractice!!!
    Friday, January 20, 2006 12:25 AM
  • delta579 has the solution - dated dec 16 - page 1

     

    Monday, January 23, 2006 4:41 AM
  • Same thing happened to me.  Still have not found a solution.  Has anyone?
    Monday, January 23, 2006 5:22 PM
  • Thank you very, very much. I'd been hunting for over a month for either a cause or a solution.  You have provided both.
    Monday, January 23, 2006 6:47 PM
  • Some of the people fixed it by putting copies of msvcr80.dll in the appropriate folders. But, you recommend that I do nothing.  Is that your latest thoughts for the problem?

    Tomales

    Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:19 PM
  • Errrr, yes.

    I wonder at times if people here are demented.  A solution in various forms has been listed in this thread - it's four pages long, currently, people.

    However, a senior Microsoft rep has recommended, in this thread, that the solutions offered NOT be implemented - if you've got a perspective beyond the next hour..  Loading a second copy of the file into Windows is likely to make it behave incorrectly, when, say, the original msvcr80.dll file is updated.  You do the copy at your own risk.

    The only proper way to correct the apparent error is to beat Symantec round its thick head and make it make a fix to WinDoctor available.

    In the meantime a less susceptible fix could be this:
    Make an msvcr80.dll file appear in the \Windows\System32 folder, but make it zero-length.

    You can use:
    if exist x > msvcr80.dll
    from a DOS prompt,
    or copy another zero-length file from anywhere else into System32, then rename it.
    And remember that you've done it.

    HTH

    Friday, February 10, 2006 9:12 AM
  • I found it in W/explorer- Copied it and pasted it into System 32- Promlem solved-Windoctor OK now
    Friday, February 10, 2006 9:47 AM
  • If I enter "if exist x > msvcr80.dll" at the DOS prompt the message says that is an inoperable command.
    Friday, February 10, 2006 2:50 PM
  • Zebra1944
    I'm sorry but I don't understand your cryptic message.  What did you find in "W/explorer"?  And what do you mean by "W/explorer"?  You mean you did a search using Explorer?  And what were you looking for?  I put msvcr80.dll in the System32 folder and would like to make it 0 length, but am not sure how to do that.
    I'm sure not happy with Norton. 
    Thanking you in advance for  your help.
    Francis
    Friday, February 10, 2006 3:21 PM
  • Ok, Francis, in  a DOS box, do this:

    if not exist x. echo > msvcr80.dll

    Alternatively:

    (in the same DOS box):
    copy con msvcr80.dll [Enter]
    F6 [Enter]

    You will then have a zero-length file entry named msvcr80.dll

    Friday, February 10, 2006 5:31 PM
  • I wanted to add one more comment on this thread, based on the subsequent discussion.

    Creating a blank file in system32 with the name msvcr80.dll is also NOT the correct solution to this problem or a safe thing to do. If you've created a blank file, I strongly recommend deleting it.

    The correct thing to do about this problem is NOTHING. Norton have been contacted, and will eventually fix their tool, but in the mean time, taking "corrective" action here is only risking causing problems later.

    if you search around the net you can find several threads like this one with "solutions" to this problem that stop Norton reporting this error. None of them are a good idea. You should un-do them if you have done them.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries

     

    Friday, February 10, 2006 5:39 PM
    Moderator
  • I did as suggested and copied msvcr80.dll I found searching my hard drive using windows explorer and pasted it into my c/windows folder and the problem resolved itself. Norton Win Doctor no longer gives me the 10 error message in the .Net Framework 2.0 etc. etc. Thanks to who ever figured this out.
    Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:35 AM
  • Since my post seems to have scrolled off in some way and people are NOT seeing it, I want to reemphasise again:

    DO NOT COPY THESE FILES TO SYSTEM32.

    The Norton warning is incorrect. Norton have been notified, and are working on fixing their problem. You safely can and should ignore this warning 

    a) Do NOT copy msvcr80, msvcp80 or msvcm80 to system32, or to the framework directory, or to the VS directory. They do not belong in any of those places. Similarly, do not copy blank or empty files to these locations.

    b) If you've already put the files in these places, please delete them.

    c) You can safely tell WinDoctor to ignore this problem.

    d) If you're working with Microsoft support and not getting a clear answer, have them talk to me.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions. Similarly, if you distrust my identity, feel free to email me directly (address below).

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl@microsoft.com

    Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:53 PM
    Moderator
  • It's no use, people will continue to do this even though it's incorrect, because it does trick WinDoctor into thinking everything is ok.    And for end-users, this is the number one thing they care about, not whether it may cause other problems down the road.

    Note: upon further testing, I found out that having msvcr80.dll etc in the system32 folder does not seem to harm the system because it never gets used by any applications as there are necessary safeguards in place that prevent the CRT DLLs from being loaded from system32 on XP. 

    Take this scenario for instance:

    1) You have Windows 2000 on your machine, and you install the vcredist_x86.exe on Windows 2000.

    2) Notice the msvcr80.dll is in system32.  

    3) Now, upgrade your OS to Windows XP.  The msvcr80.DLLs are still there in system32, but don't get used by any applications, because they will get used from WinSxS (because the vcredist_x86.exe has installed them there).

    I made a test (I took a really old msvcr80.dll from an old beta version) and copied to my system32 folder and saw whether it would ever get loaded from system32 on XP.  It never does. 

    In the situation where no msvcr80.dll has been installed to WinSxS, and a user incorrectly copies it to system32, then any application that relies on msvcr80.dll and has a manifest will come up with the "application configuration is incorrect" message unless it's installed applocal.  If the application EXE has been changed so that it has no manifest at all (remove manifest resource), then even though the msvcr80.dll exists in system32, the application will fail with an initialization error 0x80000003 error.  So there seems to be no way to get any application to load msvcr80.dll from system32 (that's why it seems a zero length version of msvcr80.dll in system32 as suggested by others seems to work)

    So in conclusion, I don't condone the approach of copying to system32, but I can admit that it appears to do no harm since it never gets loaded by any applications.

     

    Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:15 PM
  • 1. What's going to happen when Visual Studio SP1 is released? Will the System32/Msvcr80.dll interfere with the installation of that service pack or its running in anyway?

    2. The CRTs can be uninstalled through the Add/Remove programs applet. Doing so will not uninstall the manually placed System32/Msvcr80.dll (just the WinSXS binaries). Now instead of the user receiving "Application configuration is incorrect" errors (which is what they should be receiving), they will receive R6034 errors (or missing export errors if it's the beta). Wait... aren't most people downloading the DLL from dll-files.com: the really old beta version?

    Admittedly it only means you're trading one error for another, and the only people who's going to care about this is the support staff (the fix is the same: install the latest available Vcredist_x86.exe).

    3. Let's suppose the user installs an app, which forgot to embed a manifest (to indicate that it loads through WinSXS), and loads the System32/Msvcr80.dll (which would be enough to run this app). The app would work fine for several months, until the user decides to download this seemingly innocent update. All of a sudden, they're getting R6034s each time they try to start this app and they blame microsoft for breaking their computer.

    (in this case, the fault is with the app for not including the manifest).

    4. What about the people who copied Msvcr80.DLL to the Microsoft.NET folder? Everything but the .NET framework is going to work... anyone who does this are opening up a potential security hole. All we have to do is add a Microsoft.Vc80.Manifest (ok, this bit may require admin privileges, so is not really a security hole) to the folder, and now the entire app is Denial-of-service'd.

     

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:05 AM
    Moderator
  • Oshah, to discuss your points.

    1. As far as I can tell, no.  I found a msvcr80.dll from 2004 on one machine, and it seems to be ignored, so would probably guess that the SP install would be the same.

    2.  I don't think so, I still get the application configuation incorrect message if the DLL is in system32 AND the application has a manifest but nothing in WinSxS.

    3.  I don't think it will even run with no manifest.  I tried the following test on a machine that doesn't have any 8.0 libraries in WinSxs ( a virgin XP SP2 machine).  On another machine I created a standard app using wizard generated app, then I removed the generated manifest from the EXE, I copied the EXE to the virgin machine, and then copied msvcr80.dll to the system32 folder.  It didn't run, it failed with an 0x80000003 error.   Admitedly, it fails with another error (cannot find msvcr80.dll error) when they are not in system32.    So in this case there is a problem (as you say, trading one error for another more convoluted one and the error is worse).  But having an 8.0 generated app without a manifest is probably difficult. 

    4.  Agreed, but not a concern as you mentioned, it requires admin rights. 

    I agree with you 100% there are many reason why people should NOT do this, but it is not catastrophic, otherwise, they should handle OS upgrade better (i.e. not leave them in system32 after upgrade)

     

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:30 AM
  • Thank you Ted for your insights and your test results.

    1. The only place I think the install can fail is in a custom installation step. But even then, the installer should account for the possibility that the users scattered the DLLs across their system.

    BTW. Does Norton Windoctor issue the same msvcr80.dll warning for any app built in VC2005 (not just the ones in the Microsoft.NET folder)?

    2. I did not know that. Thanks for the results.

    3. I find this result strange... I would have at least expected that you receive a R6034 error when you performed this (which indicates it at least loaded). That's what I got when I compiled a C++ Hello world program at the command line. Did you use the /MANIFEST:NO switch to disable the manifest? And did you use the matching (v8.0.50727.42) Msvcr80.dll?

    Note that the user may have downloaded that really old beta version from dll-files.com, which doesn't do manifests, or created that empty file. The manifestless app could end up loading this dll, leading to all sorts of compatibility problems.

     

    On your final point... I can think of one situation where vcredist_x86 is right to install Msvcr80.dll in System32 (of course, it in no way condones the practice of manually copying it to satisfy Norton).

    1. Suppose a user runs Windows 2000. then
    2. They install the CRTs through vcredist_x86.exe. The DLLs are now located in System32 and WinSXS. then
    3. They upgrade to Windows XP. The system will now use the CRTs installed in WinSXS. According to your info, msvcr80.dll is still present in system32. then
    4. The user removes msvcr80.dll from System32. then
    5. The user decides (for whatever reason) that they want to go back to Windows 2000. then
    6. The user uninstalls Windows XP, and returns to Windows 2000. Because msvcr80.dll is no longer in the system, all VC2005 apps would cease to function.

    Had step 4 not taken place, the Vc2005 apps would still be functioning. You could say that's a typical symptom of upgrading to WinXP and doing an irreversible change in XP, but if that had been the installer/migration DLL doing step 4, the user can kiss any hope of reverting the OS goodbye.

     

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:04 PM
    Moderator
  • I think WinDoctor is only using a very rudimentary dependency check, i.e. some sort of static scan, in that it doesn't even try to load PE images to see if they're valid, it only sees whether the dependencies exist (even if they don't have the proper exports)

    What I did was on a machine with no 8.0 WinSxS at all, I copied msvcr80.dll to system32 and then removed the manifest resource from the EXE image (using a resource editor).  I didn't get an R6034. 

    I didn't consider downgrading OS from XP to 2000, is this even possible without a reformat?  If successful, I think a user would have considerably more problems other than a missing msvcr80.dll. 

    Interestingly (as an aside not related to this thread), I figured out a way to handle applocal installs on all platforms (and it is also resistant to OS upgrades).  The trick is to copy the msvcr80.dll etc to BOTH the application folder and the Microsoft.VC80.CRT folders, so for example,

    c:\testapp\testapp.exe

    c:\testapp\msvcr80.dll

    c:\testapp\Microsoft.VC80.CRT\msvcr80.dll

    c:\testapp\Microsoft.VC80.CRT\Microsoft.VC80.CRT.manifest

    On Windows 2000/98/Me, it ignores the Microsoft.VC80.CRT folder

    On XP it ignores the ones in the application folder. 

    Best of both worlds.

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:04 PM
  • The resource editing I didn't do. What I did do was add the following option to the link command line:

    /MANIFEST:NO

    (in the IDE that's: Linker -> Manifest File -> Generate Manifest -> No). This created a file that had no manifest. An assert failure came up for me (the debug version linked to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235624.aspx, the release version told the user to contact the application's support team).

    However, I am doing this on my development machine (though I doubt this makes a difference).

    About the downgrade: it's not possible to go from XP -> 2000, but it is possible to go from XP -> 98 or XP -> ME. It only appears if you have done an inplace upgrade from these operating systems, chosen to back up your OS Files (in an $NTUninstall$ folder), and haven't converted your disk from FAT32. To find out about it, open up XP's help center and search for "uninstall windows xp".

    And yes, a missing msvcr80.dll would be the least of their worries. IMO, the entire upgrade process is risky without a reformat (which is why my reply to vcredist_x86 installing both SXS and System32 versions is: meh).

    About the applocal install, I'm using this configuration:

    C:\testapp\testapp.exe
    C:\testapp\msvcr80.dll
    C:\testapp\Microsoft.VC80.manifest

    Before Win2k/9x, it would load msvcr80.dll. On a patched WinXP it would load the WinSXS version, and on a virgin WinXP it would load testapp\msvcr80.dll through the manifest.

     

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:05 PM
    Moderator
  • OShah - that's great!  I should have read your document on codeproject more carefully.

    http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/vcredists_x86.asp#PrivateAssembly

    I wonder why Microsoft recommends using those subfolders instead Microsoft.VC80.CRT, etc), when it is pointless and hinders usage on older platforms (you would have to add those to your path for it to work).    It's much better in the program folder.   Maybe you could mention in your document that Microsoft recommends the subfolder way instead in their help files, but your method is better for all platforms.

    From now on all my applocal apps will be distributed your way. 

    P.S. Another thing you could correct in the document is this sentence: "if a security bug occurs in the C-runtimes, and Microsoft releases a patch for that bug, your app will still have that bug (thus leaving users' systems open to attacks)." Actually what happens on XP is if the WinSxS versions are installed, your app will start using those instead (On other platforms, your statement is correct)


     

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:23 PM
  • Awww... I was hoping you had an answer for why Microsoft recommends using the Microsoft.vc80.manifest directory  (I was hoping that your post was going to start off with: "WHAT? How dare you attempt something like that! You can't do that because such and such...) .

    You are right that my document does need updating, but I'm too scared (read: lazy ) to alter the article. I'm afraid that I'll be forced to completely rewrite that article which could cut my free time.

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:19 PM
    Moderator
  • Ha, ha, it's funny because I already knew about it for DLLs (e.g. an ActiveX control for example) which is being loaded by something without a manifest. You have to have the manifest and the CRT DLL in the same folder as your ActiveX control, because the subfolder approach simply does not work for DLLs, only EXEs.   

    So I don't know why Microsoft recommends subfolder approach for EXEs but advocates same folder approach for DLLs. 

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:32 PM
  • Naolin,

    Thanks for your posting.  It solved the very issue I was having and you described.

    Prior to having the errorr your resolution fixed I was having an error mscoree.dll missing when I ran System Works 2005 Win Doctor Wizard from the CD.  The MS website said in order to fix the issue I needed to install Microsoft framework software using MS updates.  Which I did and then I ran the NSW Win Doctor Wizard again and got the error you helped me fix.   I thought it might help you and others to know how I arrived at the 10 executables issues your help fixed.

    I am now no longer getting any errors when I run the NSW Win Doctor issue.

    Thanks again!

     

    Friday, February 17, 2006 1:49 PM
  • Oshah, Lovell, Ted:

              I've read quickly through all the previous posts and had a thought which I thought you guys might want to comment on.  Rather than trying to "fix" the problem by making copies of the appropriate .dll's in the inappropriate directories, or by putting zero length files in these directories, what about creating soft links in these directories to the original file?  I'm not overly familiar with the "<junction>" directory entry, but if it in fact behaves like the unix symbolic link, then would that not fix the issue of "updates" to the .dll's not being reflected in the errant "copies" of the .xll's?  (Oh for the flexibility of Unix....)  In fact, in my testing, this seems to work.

    Friday, February 17, 2006 5:17 PM
  • Is Quetip's reply proof enough that no matter what anyone says, people are still going continue to do the wrong thing? Nothing is going to stop them no matter how many times we tell them otherwise.
    Friday, February 17, 2006 6:21 PM
  •  Ted. wrote:
    Is Quetip's reply proof enough that no matter what anyone says, people are still going continue to do the wrong thing? Nothing is going to stop them no matter how many times we tell them otherwise.

    Yes indeed, but I am still curious if using soft links wouldn't be a non-dangerous hack - seems to me it is, but I may be missing something.

    Friday, February 17, 2006 8:32 PM
  • It is an interesting idea.    Can a soft link be overwritten by a regular file without problems?   Is it supported on anything other than NTFS drives?  If not then someone attempting it may have trouble on a FAT32 drive.

    As for safety, please read over the following document carefully, there seems to be a lot of gotchas in using junction points.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point

    Friday, February 17, 2006 9:08 PM
  •  Ted. wrote:
    It is an interesting idea.    Can a soft link be overwritten by a regular file without problems?

    It's not the "soft-link" you want to overwrite, but the "target" of the soft link.  Suppose a soft link "L" points to the real file "F".  If an update routine makes any changes to "F", either by opening the file and writing to it, or by completely replacing the file, the soft link "L" will point to the new file, exactly as you want.  Thus, if all the soft links point to the "real" file in its correct location, then any updates to the real file are immediately reflected in the use of the file thourgh any of the soft links, which is what you want.  If a process opens the file "L" for whatever reason, assuming Microsoft has implemented things correctly, then the process will in fact wind up opening the file "F".

    If a process deletes the link "L", or does a re-name, and then creates a new file named "L", I would presume that the linkage is broken, as it should be.  But this should not be a worry, as any updates (i.e. service-pack-type updates) would be updating the real file in its correct location.  The links only serve to allow the errant application looking for the file in the wrong location to find it as if the file were actually in the location being searched.

     

     Ted. wrote:
    Is it supported on anything other than NTFS drives?  If not then someone attempting it may have trouble on a FAT32 drive.

    Only supported on NTFS under windows 2000 or later, I believe.  So yes, this is only a solution for W2K or XP on NTFS.

     Ted. wrote:
    As for safety, please read over the following document carefully, there seems to be a lot of gotchas in using junction points.

     Thanks.  I'll have a look.

    Monday, February 20, 2006 3:49 PM
  •  Ted. wrote:
    It is an interesting idea.    Can a soft link be overwritten by a regular file without problems?   Is it supported on anything other than NTFS drives?  If not then someone attempting it may have trouble on a FAT32 drive.As for safety, please read over the following document carefully, there seems to be a lot of gotchas in using junction points.

    An interesting idea only it seems.  Microsoft, it seems, has screwed it up once again.  "Junctions" are expected to be directories only.  While I can indeed make a soft link to a file, it seems there are problems accessing the file through the link.  When trying, for example, to access a link "test.doc" that points to a real file "file.doc", Word insists on thinking that "test.doc" is a directory entry.  Whether this is a problem at the application level or OS level I haven't taken the time to find out.  In any event, it seems that we still don't have the functionality of soft links for files, and don't have the functionality of hard links for directories.  sigh.

    Note that using a hard link to the file msvcr80.dll does NOT solve the problem.  It must be a symbolic link, and it seems no such beast exists in NT.  They almost got it figured out though....

    Monday, February 20, 2006 4:07 PM
  • Okay, after obtaining Norton Systemworks myself, and performing my own tests, I have a solution that should solve Norton's problems with msvcr80.dll WITHOUT needing to copy msvcr80.dll to the System32 directory (or the Microsoft.NET dir or anywhere where it shouldn't be).

    I noticed that the program scan segment does not use a simple directory scan, but performs a proper LoadLibrary check for msvcr80.dll. The reason why LoadLibrary fails, is because windoc.exe's manifest does not contain an entry to load msvcr80.dll from WinSXS (it only contains an entry for comctl32.dll, to get XP themes). To solve the msvcr80.dll problem we just need to override the internal manifest with one of our own.

    Here I'm assuming that the windoctor executable is called windoc.exe.

    Create a file called windoc.exe.manifest and give it these contents:


    <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' standalone='yes'?>
    <assembly xmlns='urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1' manifestVersion='1.0'>
      <dependency>
        <dependentAssembly>
          <assemblyIdentity type='win32' name='Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls' version='6.0.0.0' processorArchitecture='x86' publicKeyToken='6595b64144ccf1df' language='*' />
        </dependentAssembly>
      </dependency>
      <dependency>
        <dependentAssembly>
          <assemblyIdentity type='win32' name='Microsoft.VC80.CRT' version='8.0.50608.0' processorArchitecture='x86' publicKeyToken='1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b' />
        </dependentAssembly>
      </dependency>
    </assembly>

    Once you have created this file, copy it to the same folder where Norton Windoctor is located (the directory containing windoc.exe). This should get rid of the errors concerning MSVCR80.dll, (errors regarding atl80.dll mfc80.dll openmp.dll need a different manifest). Now you can safely remove msvcr80.dll from system32.

    The solution is safe because it only affects windoc.exe, and uses a documented technique to specify SXS DLLs. Should Symantec alter their executable name, you just have to rename the manifest accordingly to keep the fix (if windoc.exe is renamed to poo.exe, just rename manifest to poo.exe.manifest).

    Ultimately, it's still upto Symantec to fix their software, but this is an effective stopgap measure.

    Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:29 PM
    Moderator
  • Thanks OShah for going to the trouble of obtaining this software and posting an excellent solution, the only one I consider to be the true and safe solution to this problem.    

     

    Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:24 PM
  • Just a thought on this.

     

    I had just gotten this message myself, looked at the beginning of the forum, and decided to go to symantec's website. Hence:

    http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nsw.nsf/092b69ebdc4f9b1c88257060006f714d/74fe2fa1b068a2438825711500100c4f?OpenDocument&src=bar_sch_nam

    They're just saying to tell OneButton to just ignore it.

    I'm presuming that someone has already said it in the forum, but I didn't read the whole thing.

    Hope this helps.

    Ron V.

    Friday, February 24, 2006 11:33 PM
  • Thanks for your post. I followed your directions and the problem is fixed. Thanks again!
    Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:28 AM
  • YEP THIS IS IT. THANK YOU DELTA579 YOUR POST SOLVE MY PROBLEM THANKS AGAIN.
    Saturday, March 04, 2006 4:27 AM
  • I also found the files in windows explorer and tried opening (just to see if i could, and couldnt. so i thought something was wrong w/ them but i tried the copy and past any ways just to see and it worked, good thinking;)
    Saturday, March 04, 2006 6:25 AM
  • I suppose you're right Ted. Even after Ayman tells them that Windoctor is wrong, and Martyn warns that msvcr80.dll should not be copied in System32, AND after Symantec tell them to ignore the error, AND after we discuss the dangers of copying msvcr80.dll to System32, AND after I give instructions on how to correct Windoctor so it doesn't flag a warning, they STILL follow the wrong solution and copy msvcr80.dll to system32.

    If only someone who wrote in the first page could edit their post so it directs users to read Martyn's, mine or ronjie's reply, they would at least ignore delta579's reply.

    I give up.

     

    Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:09 PM
    Moderator
  • It's probably more frustrating for Microsoft. Have you checked the latest Vista builds lately?  Take a look in the WinSxS folder, there's something like 3000 folders there.   Imagine the crazy lengths they will have to go through to dissuade users from copying some of those back into system32 :)
    Monday, March 06, 2006 3:38 AM
  •  Ted. wrote:
    It's probably more frustrating for Microsoft. Have you checked the latest Vista builds lately?  Take a look in the WinSxS folder, there's something like 3000 folders there.   Imagine the crazy lengths they will have to go through to dissuade users from copying some of those back into system32 :)

    Actually, having 3000 folders in System32 will help matters a bit. I get the feeling that a user would rather ditch Windoctor and claim it as broken/Vista-incompatible (especially if it flags 3000 errors on a clean install of Windows Vista), than bloat up their hard drives and copy some of the 3000 files back.

    By the time Vista comes out, Microsoft could shim Windoctor to look in WinSXS as well as System32 (a possible shim would consist of one long manifest, of the form I provided).

    Monday, March 06, 2006 12:10 PM
    Moderator
  •  1on1to1 wrote:
    having the same problem, did you get a fix for this?
    Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:03 PM
  • need fix to this problem thanks jimmyjo
    Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:14 PM
  • It sounds like a great idea in eliminating the issues with "One button check up" & "Windoctor." However, in the list of 10 errors relating to the missing dll, all the errors require "msvcr80.dll" in order to execute givin .exe files in various catagories under 2.0 .net Framework.

    In other words, are these .exe files being executed properly after copying and pasting the said .dll under the system 32 folder? It may be removing the errors from Norton, but is the file serving its objective?

    Thanks to everyone for their imput. I'll work more towards this issue.

    Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:30 AM
  • Hi!

    That's a bug in Norton Win Doctor - if you search the Symantec website you'll see even they say to ignore this.

    Hope that helps.

    Sunday, March 12, 2006 2:03 PM
  • Yes Sir, a major help. After reading your post, I went to check it out at the Symantic website. Also, I am still going to prod this a bit. Will update when I have more to add.

    Thanks Again!!!

    Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:46 PM
  • what did you do to fix you problem? I have the same problem, can you help me, please?

    thanks

    Luiza

     

    Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:46 PM
  • Yes, I have tried it and it solves the problem
    Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:43 PM
  • delta579, thanks!  That works for me.  MSVCR80.dll comes from the Framework V2.0 50527 packet and I had recent need, about two weeks ago, to reinstall it.  Today was the first  time MSVCR80.dll showed up in Windows Doctor, so Norton and Symantec haven't gotten the word.

    Error cured.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:20 PM
  • Hello

    I'm experiencing a similar problem with windows defender. I'm getting an error message stating that MSASCui.exe failed to start becase it can't locate msvcr80.dll.

    What sould i do?

    Thanks
    Sunday, April 16, 2006 11:28 PM
  • Martyn:

    How about entering it (MSVCR80.DLL and MSVCP80.DLL) in the C:/WINDOWS/System32 folder? I copied these files from their original locations in Windows XP to the above folder and this worked for me with the .NET Framework 2.0 AND Windows Defender Beta 2. I'm aware you say this is an incorrect report by Norton WinDoctor but can these files do any harm in the System32 folder?

    Incidentally, I DID contact Symantec in reference to Norton SystemWork 's (WinDoctor) reporting an error with the missing files. I'm waiting for a reply.

    Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:42 PM
  • Everyone can see it as plain as daylight, but nobody's going to listen, I'm not having this problem but I still think that you should listen to Martyn Lovell seeing as how he/she is the Development Lead in the msvcr80.dll. Just a suggestion.
    Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:47 PM
  •  Martyn Lovell wrote:
    Hello everyone,

    My name's Martyn Lovell, and I'm the development lead of the team that produces msvcr80.dll [The Visual C++ Libraries team]. There are a couple of things I'd like to clarify.

    First, Norton WinDoctor is wrong. It incorrectly reports that msvcr80 is missing when in fact it is correctly installed in the WinSxS directly in the windows. folder. If you own WinDoctor, you should report this bug to Symantec so that they get it fixed.
     
    Do NOT copy the this file to any of the folders WinDoctor recommends.

    If you've already attempted to take corrective action for this issue (by copying msvcr80.dll or msvcr80d.dll to ...\system32 or to the .NET Framework directory), please undo this. These files do not need to be copied around, and doing so may cause problems in future.

    Please feel free to contact me directly if you have more questions, as I don't read this forum regularly.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries
    martynl@microsoft.com

     

    After serious discussion I'm of the opinion that Martyn Lovell has the correct answer to this problem. I've subsequently deleted the two entries (MSVCP80.DLL and MSVCR80.DLL) that I'd copied into my C:/WINDOWS/System32 folder and put the erroneous report from Norton SystemWork WinDoctor into my ignore list.

    Friday, April 21, 2006 5:27 AM
  •  
    nuttygrl...

      Re: msvcr80.dll ~~> EASY Solution\Fast FIX: easy fix at this location you can download the missing .DLL   Copy and Paste it into the System32 folder for a FAST FIX... http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr80

     

    Norton can find them but this should help....

     

    Oh, I stayed at a holiday inn express last night...

     

    Hey, Thank you Naolin for your post it helped me in part...



    Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:28 AM
  • My problem is not  with Norton as I havent got this. I had Windows Defender installed but it just stopped working and I just got the dreaded  "msvcr80.dll missing " message when I tried to open it. 'Doing nothing' as Martyn Lovell said wouldnt have solved my problem. I was sorely tempted to mess around with copying the msvcr80.dll as Delta 579 suggested but I've just found the answer, to my particular problem anyway, at a Windows Defender forum : http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/newsgroups/  which said 'if your getting the "missing MSVCR80.dll and can't download Defender .. go to your 'Start' button and search for file "MSASCui.exe.manifest" and then right click and 'delete' this file only. Then try to re-download Defender again." I did this and Defender appears to be up and running again.  

    Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:28 PM
  • I received this dll from Windows Defender. There is nothing from Norton on this clean installation of XP Pro.

     

    Thank you,
    AlaskaJoe

    Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:03 PM
  •  Martyn Lovell wrote:

    Since my post seems to have scrolled off in some way and people are NOT seeing it, I want to reemphasise again:

    DO NOT COPY THESE FILES TO SYSTEM32.

    The Norton warning is incorrect. Norton have been notified, and are working on fixing their problem. You safely can and should ignore this warning

    Lots of words, no practical help. Typical.

    Here's how it works:

    1. When instructed to do so, VC8 generates a special file, called manifest, and embeds it into the linked DLL. This file looks like this:
    <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' standalone='yes'?>
    <assembly xmlns='urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1' manifestVersion='1.0'>
      <dependency>
        <dependentAssembly>
          <assemblyIdentity type='win32' name='Microsoft.VC80.CRT' version='8.0.50608.0' processorArchitecture='x86' publicKeyToken='1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b' />
        </dependentAssembly>
      </dependency>
    </assembly>
    2. When VC8 redistributable is installed on a WinXP or Win2K3 system, it copies its files into a special directory that allows MS to maintain multiple versions of msvcr80.dll:
    C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.VC80.CRT_1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b_8.0.50727.42_x-ww_0de06acd

    3. When Windows loads any DLL that was built with an embedded manifest, it uses bits and pieces of the manifest to construct the path and locate msvcr80.dll

    4. If the manifest is not found (which is what the problem with all DLLs mentioned in this thread is), Windows tries to locate msvcr80.dll as it did it for the last couple of decades - look in the directory where the executable is, the WINDOWS directory and SYSTEM32 directory. Since msvcr80.dll is no longer copied in any of these directories, it cannot be found.

    Solution:

    Until your vendor provides you with a fixed version of their DLL that has the manifest file embedded, you can copy msvcr80.dll into SYSTEM32, which you will have to remove once you have a properly-compiled DLL (wite a stickie note to remind yourself to delete it later).

    Make sure not to install any other software until you remove msvcr80.dll, so that no incorrect references would be recorded in any of the setting.

    Make sure to remove msvcr80.dll once you get the fixed DLL. Failure to remove msvcr80.dll will break Windows' versioning and may result in incorrect behavior in the future, when new software is installed (including Windows updates).

    You can also try the solution posted by OShah earlier on this page, although this fix needs to be applied for each application individually.

    Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:33 PM
  • I'm using a 2001 XP home edition and since I downloaded Microsoft's security update I have not been able to download anything with explorer and have been unable to use OE. Norton Win Doctor reports that many programs cannot access "msvcr80.dll" and 11 are "missing". "msvcr80.dll" shows as existing when searched. I need help or I will have to reload XP.

    Friday, May 19, 2006 12:30 PM
  • your solution work'd. T H N X !!
    Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:09 PM
  • Rocket57:

    With the install of either sp1 or sp2, (I don't remember which) there was a change in the firewall settings. 

    The Service Pack TURNED the FIREWALL ON.    Try changing your windows firewall setting. 

     

    WinDoctor has a bug, you can ignore the msvcr80.dll message.  Microsoft and Symantec have responded: this is a bug in windoctor.

    You can review the seven pages of discussion.  Realize the time sequence of the posts.

     

     

    Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:22 AM
  • Noalin:  Both mine and my wife's computer began to give the same msg as you experienced, Norton WinDoctor, and everything I can figure out after reading many posting is that it all started with NET Framework 2.0. 

    I am going to remove NET Framework from my computer and I will let you know what happens. 

    Also, I had downloaded Windows Defender, Windows OneCare to my computer and tried it for about 4 weeks and then I installed it on my wife's computer and purchased the package...much to my sorrow!  My computer crashed and I had to puchase a new tower (Shuttle) and then I went to load my wife's newest Quilting software and now her computer is quite fouled up.  Is there any connection?

    Ghengis

    Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:55 PM
  •  

     

     

    Having tried every fix mentioned here, and having bought Windows Live and installed every safety product from Microsoft, I finally gave up after picking up the third virus and reformatting for the second time, fairly certain I got the Trojan when I downloaded one of the Microsoft Security programs.  .  

    Sooo, I snit-canned Norton System Works and all the Microsoft "Security" programs and opted for the Cox High Speeed Internet Security Suite. 

    Haven't had problem one since.

    I don't believe either Microsoft OR Symantec has a clue.

    jthec@cox.net

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:05 PM
  • I just installed Vongo and I'm getting an error message Re: missing msvcr80.dll.

    I suspect it has something to do with Windows Defender as well...

    My second guess is Office 7 beta which I also installed recently...

    Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:38 PM
  • The problem is not Windows Defender or Microsoft Office Beta (although their installation has exposed the existing bug in Vongo). There are known issues with the protection technology used in some applications (such as Vongo). Please contact Vongo for support.

    You can give the people at Vongo my name and email address if they need help understanding the problem and how they need to fix it.

    Martyn Lovell
    Development Lead
    Visual C++ Libraries

     

    Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:46 PM
    Moderator
  • Hello folks... I've got a problem getting the alert involving the MSVCR80.DLL.  After loading and reinstalling Windows Defender, this alert started poping up.  As instructed by the alert I uninstalled Defender and re-installed it again.  The alert resurfaced.  I did a search for the "can't find" dll, and found it in the "C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.VC80.CRT_1fc8b3b9a1e8e3b.... folder.  Additionally, because of the alert Defender doesn't work. 

    I've read the thread concerning this problem.. I'm not an expert at computers, but if someone (Martyn Lovel specially) could give me specific steps to follow to fix the problem I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.

     

     

    Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:38 PM
  • For future reference, if you need my attention, please send email to martynl@microsoft.com. I read pretty regularly, and more often than I can get to here.

    [Edit: Fixed filename below to be .exe.manifest].

    If you installed defender over a defender beta, you sometimes end up with a file msascui.exe.manifest on disk. Delete that file, and things should be ok.

    Martyn

     

    Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:49 PM
    Moderator
  • I did this... deleted file, but... I also went to add/remove programs and uninstalled windows defender.   After that, I went and downloaded and ran the new beta, and it installed, updated, scanned, and is now running flawlessly (so far!).   Maybe this was an overkill, but I wanted to take no chances.  It did work. 
    Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:22 AM
  • "I've just found the answer, to my particular problem anyway, at a Windows Defender forum : http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/newsgroups/  which said 'if your getting the "missing MSVCR80.dll and can't download Defender .. go to your 'Start' button and search for file "MSASCui.exe.manifest" and then right click and 'delete' this file only. Then try to re-download Defender again." I did this and Defender appears to be up and running again."

    I did the above, after which I uninstalled defender from add/remove programs... then downloaded and ran a fresh new copy of defender ... it installed, updated, scanned without a hitch.  So far so good!  Good luck!  

    Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:26 AM
  • I'm running Flash companion and getting the same problems. It first started after I installed Messenger Live. It said that there was an error locating MSVCR80.dll in the Messenger folder. So I uninstalled Messenger Live and reinstalled Messenger 7. It fixed the problem (don't know why Companion would rely on a Messenger DLL). Then I installed Defender Beta this morning and Now it's giving me the same message but that it's missing from a WIFD1 Directory. Since I have no directories named as such I don't know what to do. See attached image in link. msvcr80-error.gif

    Thanks

    Friday, July 21, 2006 2:53 PM
  • You can use a hard link for this. For example, this command
    fsutil hardlink create c:\dir1\test_hardlink.txt c:\dir2\test_original.txt
    Will create a file called test_hardlink.txt in dir1, which will physically point to the same NTFS file. Deleting one file in explorer or from the command line does not affect the other.

    One problem with this is that there is no visual way to tell that this file may be accessed by two paths (unlike with symbolic links on Linux) and you can end up with some DLLs loaded unexpectedly.

    Another problem one is that if this technique is used to point to the current msvcr80.dll underneath the WinSxS directory, this link will point to the old DLL, if a newer one is installed, unless Microsoft's installers maintain this link properly.

    Can somebody from Microsoft comment if there are any plans of introducing symbolic or hard links for this purpose? This technique is being used on other OS'es for years and it certainly works out better then to tell the rest of the world to make sure their applications are re-built with the manifest included.

    Friday, July 21, 2006 6:07 PM
  • From a correctness perspective, hard-linking this file is just like copying it. *** Don't Do it -- it won't work ***. Programs without manifests cannot be serviced in an emergency (which is why we error out in this case). If you link to the DLL under WinSxS, you'll just get the 6034 error as in other cases.

    We feel that the explicit manfiests are better, since a program is explicitly static which versions it depends on, allowing the OS loader to be sure it is doing the correct thing.

    Martyn

     

    Friday, July 21, 2006 6:38 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi there,

    You've found a bug in Flash Companion. You should report the bug to the product manufacturer. Feel free to give them my name and contact details (martynl@microsoft.com) and I will be glad to work with them to help them fix their problem. I do not know of a workaround. These issues are exposed by installing Defender/Office, but are not caused by bugs in any of those. They are the result of the other application interfering with the way Windows loads DLLs.

    I have heard of similar issues with other flash tools (Northcode and MDM Zinc) and I believe they either have fixes or are working on them. Of course I don't work for any of these companies, so you should contact them directly to get up to date information.

    Martyn Lovell

    Development Lead

    Visual C++ Libraries

     

    Friday, July 21, 2006 6:56 PM
    Moderator
  • Thanks Mr Lovell, I'll do that. Cheers for the fast responses you've been giving to this forum.
    Friday, July 21, 2006 7:51 PM
  • At least someone is listening to Martyn Lovell. This is like the first person I've seen actually do what he says and not question it.
    Friday, July 21, 2006 9:22 PM
  • > *** Don't Do it -- it won't work ***.

    You can say the same about your manifest idea. Code versioning must be built into the OS, not into the compiler, must be library-oriented (i.e. only the DLL vendor can say the new version is compatible with the previous one, not the EXE vendor) and must be accessible to system administrators (i.e. as a system administrator, I should be able to say - I would like to use *this* version of this DLL with this executable).

    Think about it this way - there may be a critical vulnerability fixed in a new version of some DLL, but the executable is no longer maintained or unavailable (e.g. you have to pay for an upgrade) and I would like to use a newer version of this DLL with this executable (they are call-compatible). With a properly-designed versioning system, I could point to the proper DLL with a symbolic link or use some other mechanism to associate a logical DLL of a certain version (e.g. v1.2) with the corresponding physical DLL file (e.g. v1.2.3.4).

    Manifest-based versioning is like this forum - looks like a forum, somewhat works, created by MS from scratch, probably cost a lot, but is just such a huge pain in the neck to work with. You can put as many asterisks around your "don't-do's", but the bottom line is - manifest-based versioning isn't a new and shiny mechanism that is just misunderstood by thousands of people, it's just not as good as you think it is.
    Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:37 AM
  • Hi AM,

    Thanks for following up.

    > Code versioning must be built into the OS

    The manfiest scheme used by Visual C++ 8 is part of the operating system. It was designed an implemented as part of the Windows XP product and is being first used in this version of Visual Studio as now the majority of our customers are using those newer OSes.

    > not into the compiler,

    We simply added compiler support to make it easier to generate the correct manifests that you need (so, for example, when you upgrade to VC9 we'll automatically generate manifests that target VC9, not VC8.

    > must be library-oriented (i.e. only the DLL vendor can say the new version is compatible with the previous one, not the EXE vendor)

    This is exactly how it works, except that we also allow system administrators to override. A DLL vendor ships a signed package that contains a newer version, and installs policy that redirects their DLL. The EXE is not able to redirect, because policy is only applied from the cental store, not from the local EXE

    > and must be accessible to system administrators (i.e. as a system administrator, I should be able to say - I would like to use *this* version of this DLL with this executable).

    System administrators can do exactly this in the Windows system as we have it today.

    > Think about it this way - there may be a critical vulnerability fixed in a new version of some DLL, but the executable is no longer maintained or unavailable (e.g. you have to pay for an upgrade)
    > and I would like to use a newer version of this DLL with this executable (they are call-compatible). With a properly-designed versioning system, I could point to the proper DLL with a symbolic
    > link or use some other mechanism to associate a logical DLL of a certain version (e.g. v1.2) with the corresponding physical DLL file (e.g. v1.2.3.4).

    I do think about it that way, and our system completely supports this today.

    I'm sorry that you're having trouble with manifest based, versioning, and we've been working to improve our documentation to better communicate what it does and doesn't do (especially relevant here since the techology does do all the things that you say that you want from it. I will be glad to help you with any future problems you have.

    Martyn

     

     

    Monday, July 24, 2006 7:27 PM
    Moderator
  • Thank you, Martyn

    > The manfiest scheme used by Visual C++ 8 is part of the operating system.

    What OS means are available to control various aspects of this system?

    > The EXE is not able to redirect, because policy is only applied from the cental store, not from the local EXE

    Can you please elaborate on where this store is and how can a system administrator access or modify it?

     

    Monday, July 24, 2006 10:35 PM
  •  Naolin wrote:
    Hi there, can someone possibly tell me why Noton WinDoctor is telling me that 10 executables in the .NET Framework 2.0 cannot access the necessary dll file msvcr80.dll? I see that the dll exists in the WinSxS directory and I'm running XP pro. I didn't have this problem until I downloaded the 2.0 framework at windows update. Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

    Naolin
    Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:05 AM
  • Folks:

     Ignore your tools message and live w/it.  If that's your only problem, let's all go on.  I'm a perfectionaist too when it comes to my computer errors.  This one is no easy fix.

     If you find one, please share.

     RG

    Monday, August 07, 2006 4:31 AM
  • Hi CJ

    I experienced the same problem today and contacted Vongo. I am waiting to hear  back from them. Did you get the issue resolved...............and if so how......................

     

    Thanks

     

    Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:29 AM
  •  Martyn Lovell wrote:

    I'm sorry that you're having trouble with manifest based, versioning, and we've been working to improve our documentation to better communicate what it does and doesn't do (especially relevant here since the techology does do all the things that you say that you want from it. I will be glad to help you with any future problems you have.

    Martyn

    Martyn, do you or do you not have the answers to the questions I asked on 07-24-2006 10:35 PM UTC in the post following the quote one?

    A.M.

    Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:18 PM
  • Martin,

     

    thank you for addressing this forum and telling us what NOT to do.  Now, can you tell us what we CAN do to fix yjis problem, apart from telling Norton to IGNORE it.  I know I am something of a computer primitive - I still think Windows peaked with 3.11 - but I have yet to see any direct solutions that help resolve this error.  I would appreciate any advice or solutions you could give.

     

    Thanks again.

     

    Mad Man Phil

    Monday, August 14, 2006 6:48 AM
  • Hi,

    I am having the same problem when I run "One Button Checkup", it says there is 11 errors with "Program Integrity Scan'. All of them are missing program file "msvcr80.dll", 10 in .NET\Framwork\v2.0 and 1 in MSN Messenger. I guess no one has found out what this problem is yet. I have a hunch it is not really a problem with .NET\Framwork\v2.0 but rather with System Works interpretation of the .NET Framwork. I will try to find an answer on the Symantec website and/or from Symantec help line (though they'll probably want to charge me some exorbitant fee if I call there support line). If I find the answer I will post it here.

    Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:11 PM
  • Thank you for taking the time to provide this solution!  This problem was making me crazy.
    Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:01 PM
  • I continue to get that "error" in both WinDoctor and One-Button Fix, as well, but now know to ignore it, unless this means Net Framework 2.0 really ISN'T working right.

    Of course I really DOUBT that's the case, since I actually went so far as to UNINSTALL IT using the control panel utility, then went to Windows Update and reinstalled it from the internet, and STILL GET that same error (note that prior to doing this, I also copied that .dll file "UP" the folder structure to the base folder in which the original Net Framework was installed, but I'm guessing all that went bye-bye when I did the original UNinstall, so I'm not too concerned about having to go in and delete extra copies of Msvcr80.dll.

    BUT, the main reason I was messing about with this to start with is that I've had intermittent problems with Windows Media Center since a couple months after I bought this HP m376n Windows Media Center PC Thanksgiving Weekend of 2003. It would work for a few months, then suddenly I'd start getting the error when I tried to view Live TV "files needed to display video are missing or corrupt." The FIRST time I had this problem, it took me WEEKS to finally figure out that I could simply do a system restore to a date prior to that and solve the issue, which was what I continued to do every time it happened (every few months), until the LAST TIME it happened about two months ago, when the system wouldn't LET me do a System Restore any more (I don't know why). Regardless, there have been SEVERAL CRITICAL SECURITY UPGRADES since then, so I'm not sure I'd want to restore to back before them.

    I JUST LAST NIGHT finally found an article on HP's service area with the actual text "files needed to display video are missing or corrupt" in it, telling what may cause that and what to do about it. Unfortunately, in the intervening weeks prior to this, I've tried some OTHER things suggested at their Website to get Media Center to work better, such as deleting the settings files using Resedit and then setting it back up, and so forth, and NOW when Media Center opens, TV isn't even an OPTION (it WOULD at least recognize and play all my SAVED TV programs before). NOW when I open it, if I click on Settings, then TV, I get the message "Make sure you have a valid Tuner and Tuner card installed." Well, I've done BOTH OF THOSE THINGS... ALL my diagnostics on the computer (PC Doctor, Device Manager, etc.), say both the Emuzed Evcapmaui card is working fine AND its driver is, as well. I also tried the suggestion from HP of reinstalling the driver using the built-in utility on the computer, then restarting the computer and going to Windows Update and doing it again from there, then another Restart, and STILL Media Center fails to even recognize the card or driver (I have no idea which, or if both, is/are the problem).

    This has me about ready to pull my freakin' hair out!

    If I could find a problem, I could fix it. But when all my diagnostics say there IS no problem, yet I KNOW THERE IS, what do I do? I've been told the REAL problem is that Media Center 2004 is actually just "buggy," and having 2005 would fix that, but that there's no real upgrade path for that without buying a new Media Center computer, which REALLY, REALLY sucks!

    Any thoughts or help would be GREATLY appreciated.

    Jeff Hayes

    JeffAHayes@aol.com

    Monday, August 21, 2006 7:57 PM
  • Ok, This sounds like a very unlikely solution. But after talking to a number of people using the same authoring system I was using we determined I had a faulty installation of Java Virtual Machine. Somehow it was interfering with .net.  It all sounds very far fetched, but when I uninstalled JAVA, deleted every file and folder relating to it, rebooted, and reinstalled it from Sunmicrosystems website Everything worked and I never got an error or crash since.

    This probably won't help most of you, but I hope this helps someone. Good luck.

    Monday, August 21, 2006 8:33 PM
  •  

       I nam experincing the same ***,when i run windoctor from norton system works they come back with the message:

       10 problems found etc ,etc,it is driving me nuts because i am a perfectionist,i have not found a solution yet but idon''t give up

       so easy,but anyway it is driving me almost crazy.REgards Emery.Worldwide@wanadoo.nl   The Netherlands.

     

     

    Friday, September 01, 2006 10:01 PM
  • Ok, so I am running Beta 12 on this machine. It is primarily used for entertainment in my home, WOW, Movies, etc. I never loaded Office 2003 on it at all.

    What is the best fix for the Vongo MSOXMLMF.DLL problem? The application will not load as it is still sourcing for this driver. Vongo is unresponsive.

    Thanks,

    Dana

    x16013

    Monday, September 04, 2006 4:17 PM
  • OK, I use WinDoctor, got this error, and it was referring to the newly installed program Money 2007. I don't have the file msvcr80.dll anywhere on my computer and my HP is working fine, too. I did the ignore and hate that but there's apparently no real choice.

    Friday, September 08, 2006 5:44 AM
  •  wizzlestik wrote:
    I am having the same problem... I even uninstalled it.. and it didnt show a problem then I reinstalled the update and it showed up as a problem in the Windoctor again... any ideas as to what is wrong with this update?? Im sure its a simple fix but I cant seem to get it..
    Sunday, September 10, 2006 8:59 PM
  • I also, can not find the msvcr80.dll file on my computer. The Nortons disk check routine shows that I have 10 problems that can't be fixed. What can I do to correct and where do I find the msvcr80.dll file?

    Monday, September 18, 2006 6:12 PM
  • I have installed Windows Live Messenger and now get reports that MSVCR80.dll cannot be found. If I install a copy of the file from the web I get errors that I do not understand and Windows Live Messenger refuses to work. Please tell me:

    a. How to fix this

    b. where do I get the right version of MSVCR80.dll

    c where do I put it once I have it?

    James

    Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:27 PM
  • So far Symantec (Norton) doesn't have a complete fix for this problem. However, they suggested that the following be done:

    Error: " . . . Cannot access necessary file, msvcr80.dll..." when running One Button Checkup or WinDoctor

    To prevent these messages from appearing, tell One Button Checkup or WinDoctor to ignore the errors. If you tell One Button Checkup or WinDoctor to fix the errors, the messages will reappear the next time that you scan the computer.

    Ignore the errors in One Button Checkup

    1 In the One Button Checkup window, to the right of Program Integrity Scan, click view details.

    2 Click Missing Program Files (n problems), where n is the number of problems that One Button Checkup found.

    3 For each message that says ". . . cannot access a necessary file, 'msvcr80.dll,'" right-click the message, and then click Ignore Selected Problem.

    4 After all of the msvcr80.dll problems have been ignored, click OK.

    Ignore the errors in WinDoctor

    1 In the Norton WinDoctor window, on the right side, click Details.

    2 In the list that is under the Details bar, click the first message that says ". . . cannot access a necessary file, 'msvcr80.dll.'"

     

    Monday, September 25, 2006 7:56 PM
  • One way you can fix this problem is by creating the "msvcr80.dll" file.  I was having the same problem, and after creating the file WinDoctor didn't find a problem anymore.  The directory for my missing file was C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727.  Check and see if the file exists, if it does then something must be wrong with WinDoctor, otherwise, open Notepad and click Save As.  For file name make sure you type "msvcr80.dll", and where the second box says "Save as Type" select "All Files."  Make sure you save it in the correct directory, which I believe should be the same as the one above.

    Hope this helps!

    BottomDown

    Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:05 AM
  • Well I just installed Norton Systemworks 2006 and win doctor found the same msvcr80.dll errors. Per Norton, set your "one button checkup" or Win doctor to ignore it. Check it out on symantec's web site for more info.   Also don't install the one from www.dll-files.com, it'll screw up your system after reboot.
    Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:07 AM
  •   

    I downloaded the file from dll-files.com,you get a ripped file just unzip it in the directory,C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727 and your problems are solved,no error messages anymore at least by me it worked,but i have to tellyou i deleted the old version of messenger also,because i installed Live Messenger and after that the problems started. Greatings from Emery(Netherlands,a mathematical engineer and a computer freek,i do not go to bed before a problem is solved).

     

                                                        Emery Bogaert

                                                        Echternachlaan 25

                                                        5625 KA Eindhoven

                                                       0031(0)40-2429740

                                                        emery.worldwide@wanadoo.nl

    Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:36 AM
  • From Norton:

    To Prevent these messages from appearing, tell One Button Checkup or WinDoctor to ignore the errors.

    They are sorry they cannot fix the problem nor give any reason why it occurs.

    Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:11 AM
  • When I went to Norton with the issue they told me to make One Button Checkup and WinDoctor ignore the problem because they cannot fix it.

     

    Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:14 AM
  • I told you before the problem,if it was a problem anyway can be solved quiet easy,you download the msvcr80.dll from dll-files.com and unzipp it at the directory C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.050727 I hope this wil solve yuor problem

    Greatings   Emery

    Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:10 AM
  • Hi Bogaert,

    I am very thankfull for your advise because i did what you suggested and it worked.

    Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:22 AM
  • Hi Naolin

    Look at posts 3 Bogaert 01 Oct. 2006. It fixed my problem.

    Bettina

    Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:26 AM
  • Thank you for the tip tried it and it worked great.
    Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:01 AM
  • I just found your post, I was having the same problem even before I just added IE7.  Your answer was concise and to the point and has fixed the problem.

    Thank you,

    Connie

    Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:51 PM
  • I had the same problem. .Net Framework 2 was installed on my PC yesterday and today I got the same message from WinDoctor. I searched the internet and found a site from which to download msvcr80.dll.  I just downloaded it an put it in my Windows System folder, then reran WinDoctor and the error messages are now gone. The link to the site is: http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?msvcr80

    Jim

    Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:58 PM
  • Tks Emery

    Your advice is right on the money - worked well for me.

    GoldTop

    Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:34 AM
  • Thankyou, your suggestion solved the problem. Great to know about dll-files.com, I added it to my Favorites
    Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:11 PM
  • I shared the same problem, and unzipping the file  also solved my problem.

    Monday, December 04, 2006 10:04 PM
  • 31 issues with "cannot access msvcr80.dll", where do I find an actual solution? microsoft? symantec? why must you be so evasive?
    Friday, December 08, 2006 1:30 AM
  • I can't thank you enough! Your suggestion for a fix really worked.  -Jennifer
    Sunday, December 10, 2006 11:03 PM
  • Emery, I have enjoyed reading the postings on this subject and have identified with many of the comments (frustration w/Symantec, perfectionism, et. al.).  I resolved the problem by copying this dll (and msvcp80.dll) to the system32 folder.  The msvcrxx.dll and msvcpxx.dll have been such an integral part of C++ development for all these years, I figured they should be in the system32 folder.  Do you see any potential problems with my approach?  Thanks, Mark (mbennion@att.net)

    Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:14 PM
  • After hearing many issues with this problem, I took the simpler approach, I deinstalled Symantec and installed Microsoft One Care.  I don't get the false positives, it runs faster, and it does my backups.
    Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:51 PM
  • not yet .....
    Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:01 PM
  • Good advice, this worked for me as well. Thanks for posting.
    Sunday, December 17, 2006 11:35 PM
  • I also had the same problem using Norton win doctor with the microsoft.net and a few other programs. Your fix worked great. I found I could unzip the .dll file into the directoy the .exe that could not find it was in.
    Saturday, December 30, 2006 3:35 AM
  • It is not a good idea to install that dll in in some directory just to satisfy some 3rd party tool!

    I am with Martin, Norton is often overbearing and makes false assumptions. I have tried every product they make, and none are installed on any of my computers.

    Let's say that microsoft updates the dll(the c runtime dll in this case no less) located in the OEM path, and you have the old version installed by copy/paste. Will you know when this happens??? Some application, like .NET may load the old dll because it is in the .NET lib path, when it really expects the new dll from the OEM path.

    The library in question is the c runtime VC8.0 version. Martin is correct in stressing that if the program runs, there is nothing wrong - no program which needs this dll can run without it. If it needs it, and it is not there, a error box will immediatly alert you.

    When this happens, you should then install a copy(of the dll in question) in the folder of the .exe that requires it, not in a system or environment path.  

     

    Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:01 AM
  • No I haven't
    Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:09 AM
  • This thread has gone on so long I gave up reading every post.  So I hope I don't offend anyone by repeating something that has been already said.

    I usually go on the assumption that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Norton's warnings that a file is inaccessible worried me at first, but my computers have been working fine without my doing anything about this so-called problem for a couple of years.

    However:  Now that I've started using Adobe Reader 8.0, I am encountering the same problem with them.  Their program wants both msvcr80.dll and msvcp80.dll.

    I suspect that the problem is where the register tells these programs to find the files; or rather where it doesn't.

    But I don't like playing with the register if I can avoid it.

    So I did a search (making sure that I set Windows Explorer view to show all system files and hidden files) for both of these files.  I found two copies of each.  I checked version numbers and selected the later of the two.  I then copied the msvcr80.dll into C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727.  I reran Norton WinDoctor and all of my Framework 2 problems were fixed.  But I still had the Adobe problems.

    So I then copied the latest version of both msvcr80.dll and msvcp80.dll into C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 8.0\Reader and that fixed the Adobe issues.

    I know that there are various copies of msvcr80.dll floating around out there but the ones I downloaded and checked were all earlier version numbers.  If I am going to play this game of second-guessing system installations, then I feel I should at least use the most up-to-date files.

    If you want to comment to me directly you can do so at mijcar at aol dot you-know-what.

     

     

    Saturday, January 06, 2007 6:03 AM
  • Thanks for the advice to do nothing. My System Works keeps telling me msvcr80.dll is missing. I'll wait till Norton fixes the problem for us.
    Friday, January 12, 2007 10:28 AM
  • That's exactly what I'm going to do, thanks a lot,

    Ozzie Dugain

     

    Friday, January 12, 2007 8:17 PM
  •  1on1to1 wrote:
    having the same problem, did you get a fix for this?

    yes, when i run some file such as mp3, wma, or video files, this problem occurs to clsoe current window so I can't keep working the same project at once.

    I like to know what the problem and how I can solve it............Please help.........!!!!!

    Monday, January 15, 2007 5:30 AM
  • http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nsw.nsf/0/74fe2fa1b068a2438825711500100c4f?OpenDocument

     

    This is a Symantec problem. See the note above, then tell norton to ignore.

    Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:18 AM
  • OK, I read Symantec's instructions on how to ignore these errors, but it still bothers me.  Since I found msvcp versions 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 (msvcp50.dll, msvcp60.dll, msvcp70.dll, and msvcc71.dll) already in C:\WINDOWS\system32, I moved a copy of version 8.0 (msvcr80.dll 8.0.50727.42) there as well so it would be in the general DLL file search path.  The '8.0.50727' of this file matches the version of Framework referenced in the problem.  The copy I used was the most recent I could find and was already on my computer with all updates loaded.  I also did the same thing to msvcr80.dll since version 7.0 and 7.1 were already there in C:\WINDOWS\system32.

    You can configure Norton to ignore it if you want, but this made everything happy on my system.

    P.S. The version I found at dll-files.com was too old (not 50727) and shouldn't be used.

    Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:29 PM
  • Hello Martyn:

    I have done the following and it worked pretty well and I do not think this will cause any trouble with other programs that use the msvcr80.dll file:

    1) I used the Search engine from Windows (via the start menu).

    2) I searched for the msvcr80.dll file.

    3) I copied this file to the directory where the Norton Windoctor reports the missing file.

    4) I scanned my drive again with Windoctor.

    5) No problem was reported.

     

    Alex.

     

    Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:42 PM
  • Emery,

    Thank you for posting!  Your solution is right on!  I followed your instruction and problem solved!

     

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:29 AM
  • Jeff,

    Did you get an answer?  I jsut ran into the same problem.  Uninstalled and reinstalled Radeon Catalyst software with no luck.

    Al

     

    Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:29 AM
  • Martin, et al...

     

    Please have a moderator review this thread, taking particular care to notice the responses that appear to gloss over or simply ignore the "real" information. This entire thread is being covertly flamed, as well as duplicated on many other websites.

     

    To a layperson, the sheer number of "endorsements" and "thanks" for the bad info is probably enough to get them to do it. That and the questioning of Martins role, title and information...all done on purpose to undermine and discredit that same information.

     

    A search of GGL, YAH or other engines will return almost identical replicates of this MSDN thread, along with duplicated replies. Also note the number of posts by over 90% of those "thanking" or "blessing" delta and others who are putting up bad info. (1 or 2). Based on that behavior alone, the posts should be examined, questioned, and removed if found to be from fake addys, the same IPs, etc. These posts are from a person or persons intent on causing, at the very least, confusion-and at worst, harm-to a persons system or data.

     

    A simple IP check of those same "endorsements" might also reveal some interesting trends... 

     

    To anyone that took the time to actually read this far-

     

    DO NOT PUT FILES INTO YOUR COMPUTER FROM SOME WEBSITE THAT UNTIL TODAY YOU NEVER HEARD OF...
    BASED ON ADVICE FROM SOMONE YOU DON'T KNOW.

     

    A little common sense here can go an awfully long way...

     

     

    Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:16 AM
  • I too am having a similar problem with my Windows Defender looking for this file.  It is pretty annoying.More to the point.  Can you help resolve this problem? Cheers
    Monday, May 14, 2007 8:58 AM
  • Thank you Emery for the information. It worked like a charm, no thanks to the mvps
    Friday, June 01, 2007 1:50 PM
  • I am suspicious of things that break after Micro$oft makes a change.

    I have used Norton since the msdos days. This smells like a way to make them look bad and sell a shiny new M$ product.
    Friday, June 01, 2007 2:00 PM
  • I my self have just found this Problem "msvcr80.dll" a reported error by Norton's Windoc.

     

    There is no problem.

     

    This is DOT NET v2.0 whether it came with a product that u bought or through windows update.

    here is a link to set ur Windoc to ignore this problem.

     

    http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nsw.nsf/docid/2006021318552207?OpenDocument&lg=en&ct=us&seg=hho&src=hot

     

     

    Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:06 AM
  • Here is a fix that eliminates a problem that  Norton WinDoctor detects 'cannot access a necessary file' "msvcm80.dll" ,and/or "msvcp80.dll",and/or "msvcr80.dll"

    Copy/paste each of these three files -- msvcm80.dll, msvcp80.dll, msvcr80.dll -- located in the folder C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.VC80.CRT -- into C:\WINDOWS\system.

    Note:there may be several folders named "x86_Microsoft.VC80.CRT"...in WinSxS,not to worry.Any one will do,ok,fine.

    WascallyWhiteWabbit
    Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:33 AM

  • Thanks LOL, like the answer you got for us. I'm really gratefull for the tip "MSVCR80.dll" and I think that this moderator guy needs to chek his knowlege about pc and you need to be his adviser or simply replace him!

    Thanks again
    Friday, August 17, 2007 11:28 AM
  • I am shocked at how poorly people are reading this thread

    AVOID MAKING IT WORSE
    1. Don't copy msvcr80.dll to your system folder, you may regret this later
    2. Don't use a download from a website you've never heard of before to modify your operating system
    3. Ignore false error messages from Norton WinDoctor and similar (check their websites for their advice)
    SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

    The real point is that there is no single solution.
      This is because it is not a single problem but a multiple one.  A number of programmes use this file (msvcr80.dll), and they may write their own versions onto your computer when they are installed.  Some of these are faulty, and it may not be immediately apparent.

    WHAT TO DO?
    1. Work out which programmes you have installed recently.  Note: it might not be the most recent that is the culprit.
    2. Try uninstalling and re-installing.
    3. Contact the programme maker; a fix may be available, if not, they will now be informed and can get to work creating a fix.
    4. Try pointing the programme that won't load to another version of the msvcr80.dll file.
    I personally have had problems getting Adobe Reader and Nikon Transfer to load.  I have updated several programmes recently and cannot yet identify which was responsible for this problem, but re-installing many of these seems finally to have done the trick.
    Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:16 PM
  • Hi Nick, what is the procedure for directing a trouble program to use an alternate msvcr80.dll file?

     

    thanks, ray

     

    Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:55 PM
  • Good morning,

     

    My first post here so please forgive any protocol errors.

     

    XP-SP-2 fully patched standalone home user.

     

    I took some photographs and had the processing place load them on CD.

     

    When I insert the CD and attempt to view it, I get the following error message  ' could not find MSVCR80.dll required by c:\Progra~1Windows\MpShHook.dll'.

     

    I know there are several sites from which I could d/l, but this is an MS Product and I wqould like to know where on the MS Site I can d/l it.

     

    I have done a sfc scandisc and using my O/S disc, loaded whatever *.dll files were deemed missing.

     

    Regrettably the process does not identify exactly what those *.dll files are.

     

    Can you please help,

     

    Thank you

     

    David Williams

     

     

    Saturday, October 27, 2007 8:00 PM
  •  

    Thanks Delta (p.1). I copied mine from the Windows system file (Start>search>all files and folders> #file name) and then placed that copy in the dot net file, and it works fine.  Not necessary to download anything from any dll site, or take their subscription. Thanks for the warnings techies, but with few tools, it is nice to get a clean scan on Norton System Works.

    Jono

    Saturday, November 10, 2007 3:46 AM
  • hi i had this problem when trying to install call of duty 2 recently i then un installed frameworks 1.1 as my one is 2.2- 2.0 and this seemed to work i hope this works for you
    Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:51 PM
  • Norton pointed out the msvcr80.dll problem. PCOnpoint will not finish scan because it gets hung up in registry. I need to get this straightened out asap.

    Monday, December 10, 2007 4:26 PM
  • This thread has grown intractably long such that most people who come across aren't taking the time to read the postings to find the correct answer - which was posted over a year ago.

     

    See the post in this thread by Martyn Lovell dated 16-Jan-2006 at 9:24PM UTC for the authoritative answer (it's on page 3).

     

    If you have Norton WinDoctor and are getting this error, the problem is with WinDoctor.  Contact Symantec support or check their website for updates.

     

    I'm locking this thread from further posts - the question's been authoritatively answered and there's nothing to be gained by continuing the thread.

     

     

    Monday, December 10, 2007 9:45 PM
    Moderator