mscoree.dll

FWIW:

Would like to share this with the NG, despite the risk of exposing myself to
some *flak*:
Knowing from experience, it to be safe, I have been using an old "Norton
System Works 2002" CD to *only* run Launch Utilities from CDFast and Safe
and NortonWinDoctor.
On my last scan I found a missing "mscoree.dll" file, including the
location. Have no idea why it was missing, but I downloaded it for free and
after unzipping, put it in its proper place.
It is not missing anymore.

Harry.

MSCOREE.DLL
This file is part of Microsoft .NET (and therefore not included as part of
Win Me) and the most common reason for the absence of mscoree.dll is if
the Microsoft .NET Framework is not installed on the target computer.
Applications and controls written for the .NET Framework require that it
be installed on the computer on which the application or control runs.
The .NET framework can be downloaded from the Windows Update site but is a
pretty big download 20MB or so.

Norton Futilities have always flagged this as an error which simply
illustrates how little Symantec know about the area and Win Me
specifically.
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

FWIW:

Would like to share this with the NG, despite the risk of exposing
myself to some *flak*:
Knowing from experience, it to be safe, I have been using an old
"Norton System Works 2002" CD to *only* run Launch Utilities from
CDFast and Safe and NortonWinDoctor.
On my last scan I found a missing "mscoree.dll" file, including the
location. Have no idea why it was missing, but I downloaded it for
free and after unzipping, put it in its proper place.
It is not missing anymore.

Harry.

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way my pc
told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to have this
showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or so). Therefore I
took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.
Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
MSCOREE.DLL
This file is part of Microsoft .NET (and therefore not included as part of
Win Me) and the most common reason for the absence of mscoree.dll is if
the Microsoft .NET Framework is not installed on the target computer.
Applications and controls written for the .NET Framework require that it
be installed on the computer on which the application or control runs.
The .NET framework can be downloaded from the Windows Update site but is a
pretty big download 20MB or so.

Norton Futilities have always flagged this as an error which simply
illustrates how little Symantec know about the area and Win Me
specifically.
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

FWIW:

Would like to share this with the NG, despite the risk of exposing
myself to some *flak*:
Knowing from experience, it to be safe, I have been using an old
"Norton System Works 2002" CD to *only* run Launch Utilities from
CDFast and Safe and NortonWinDoctor.
On my last scan I found a missing "mscoree.dll" file, including the
location. Have no idea why it was missing, but I downloaded it for
free and after unzipping, put it in its proper place.
It is not missing anymore.

Harry.

Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and does
nothing to help keep your system running but rather the reverse as
demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know why you bother and
would suggest the best place for the CD concerned is the local dumpster.
:-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way
my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to
have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or
so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.
Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Harry,

You have the option of selecting to *Ignore* the error. Consider, if you
were supposed to correct every error identified, there would be no point in
an option to ignore. However, while Symantec state that the user should only
hit *Repair* if he/she understands what it entails, a *Repair All* button is
provided with which the trusting can 'correct' potentially hundreds of
errors in the blink of an eye.

Most Norton users defend Utilities/Systemworks by the seriously-flawed
reasoning that because it hasn't caused them problems it proves there aren't
any.

I run NU2000, have done for many years (though fewer than 7). I think Speed
Disk is the best defragger for 9x, but a no. of components should not be
installed (such as Norton Optimisation Wizard, NSD and others). You know, I
try to be balanced.

I have numerous drives and move stuff about a lot, and doing such it is
very, very easy to demonstrate that WinDoctor is comparatively stupid and
will, more-often-than-not, choose the wrong executable to point a shortcut
at. The consequence of this is that when you hit Repair/Repair All without
first determining the proposed solution, all sorts of commands, rather than
fail to work will execute some other potentially disastrous program or
routine.

I tested Utilities/Systemworks 2001 and 2002, specifically to see if this
failing had been corrected and there was no improvement whatsoever (at least
the 'Repair All' button could have been removed - but do that and bang goes
the wishful-thinking customer base, ie the majority).

The only reason people continue to trust NU/NSW is recommendations by
non-experts who never test it sufficiently to discover the errors, or who
blame those it produces on something else (probably Windows, probably when
they discover it several months later). It is perfectly good for the user
who will not have it 'repair' anything he/she does not understand. IOW it's
a program for experts, not novices - unfortunately it's aimed at novices as
a one-button cure-all.

I'm not aware of a really big software house that cares about the quality of
the product rather than about selling to the majority, ie the rubes. If they
just stick to the English-speaking market the rewards are astronomical. How
much power would a company have selling to every person on the planet? Well,
that's really what they want to get as near to as poss. Hmm, I seem to be
talking about some other company now...


Shane




webster72n wrote:
FWIW:

Would like to share this with the NG, despite the risk of exposing
myself to some *flak*:
Knowing from experience, it to be safe, I have been using an old
"Norton System Works 2002" CD to *only* run Launch Utilities from
CDFast and Safe and NortonWinDoctor.
On my last scan I found a missing "mscoree.dll" file, including the
location. Have no idea why it was missing, but I downloaded it for
free and after unzipping, put it in its proper place.
It is not missing anymore.

Harry.

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and does
nothing to help keep your system running but rather the reverse as
demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know why you bother and
would suggest the best place for the CD concerned is the local dumpster.
:-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way
my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to
have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or
so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.
Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow his
advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and does
nothing to help keep your system running but rather the reverse as
demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know why you bother and
would suggest the best place for the CD concerned is the local dumpster.
:-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the way
my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't want to
have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once a month or
so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your enemy.
Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out of
arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose that's
what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so bloated
(and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're
indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect
though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely* useless.

Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for one,
though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But if
you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is, on
the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo, unnecessary
nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk
equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the error
is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small and
don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send you
them if required, though I doubt you will require them).

WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW, imo,
is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and
although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with a
whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their system.

Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the correct
one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all components
outright.

Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For instance,
you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most
installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can always
go back and change to Standard.

Shane

webster72n wrote:
Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow
his advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and
does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the
reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know
why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD
concerned is the local dumpster. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the
way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't
want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once
a month or so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so.
Just like inspecting an object under the microscope.
And the approach has to be universal, know what I mean?
You sort of *made my day* and my name even is *Harry*.
Thanks.

*Same as above*.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out
of
arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose
that's
what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so
bloated
(and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're
indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect
though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely* useless.

Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for one,
though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But if
you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is, on
the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo, unnecessary
nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk
equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the error
is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small
and
don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send you
them if required, though I doubt you will require them).

WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW,
imo,
is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and
although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with a
whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their system.

Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the correct
one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all
components
outright.

Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For
instance,
you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most
installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can always
go back and change to Standard.

Shane

webster72n wrote:
Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow
his advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and
does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the
reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know
why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD
concerned is the local dumpster. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the
way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't
want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once
a month or so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings g.

Heh...just when I think I do know what you mean, Harry, it's gone again!
vbg


Shane


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

That's the ultimate in this NG, Shane, at least, I think so.
Just like inspecting an object under the microscope.
And the approach has to be universal, know what I mean?
You sort of *made my day* and my name even is *Harry*.
Thanks.

*Same as above*.


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Yeah, no problem, Harry. You know, I do get a kind of perverse kick out
of
arguing *for* Symantec - if that's what it is. Though I don't suppose
that's
what it really is - or not any longer - as current offerings are so
bloated
(and the last versions 9x could use, so resource hungry) they're
indefensible. I do differ with Mike, Noel and Figgeroo in this respect
though, in that the circa 2000 versions were/are not *entirely* useless.

Some of the DOS tools of NU2000 etc are pretty useful. Disk Edit for one,
though it's not for novices and anyway DOS is almost obsolete now. But if
you continue to run 98 or ME, the DOS version of Norton Disk Doctor is,
on
the whole, better than ScanDisk. The Windows version is, imo, unnecessary
nonetheless, but the DOS one can often repair errors that the ScanDisk
equivalent insists you boot to Windows to do, which is a pita if the
error
is actually preventing Windows from booting. These tools are very small
and
don't need installing to use (or buying a cd as I'd quite happily send
you
them if required, though I doubt you will require them).

WinDoctor is simply unnecessary and the only good reason to run NU/NSW,
imo,
is for SpeedDisk - which is (was) available as a standalone anyway, and
although seemingly more expensive that way at least does not come with a
whole host of other programs to tempt the user to screw up their system.

Maybe Mike, Noel and Figgington-Smythe's approach is actually the correct
one, but since *I* still use the suite, I'm unable to condemn all
components
outright.

Anyway, you should take a look at Custom installation options. For
instance,
you could install *only* SpeedDisk (more-or-less). Same goes for most
installations - choose Custom. If the options get confusing you can
always
go back and change to Standard.

Shane

webster72n wrote:
Mighty interesting, Shane and showing, you know your *stuff*.
You read what Mike said and I don't want to get on his bad side.
Just kidding, since I am not much more than a novice, I better follow
his advice to aim for the local dumpster.
Thanks Shane and Mike.

Harry.


"webster72n" wrote in message
...

Aren't you a little hard on this "innocent" CD, Mike,
to destine it for the "local dumpster"?
What if I found a buyer, if the price was right?
I hate to loose "the thing", it "seemed" to do a good job.

Harry.


"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy.

Just as long as you realise the program concerned is useless and
does nothing to help keep your system running but rather the
reverse as demonstrated by this thread. Personally I don't know
why you bother and would suggest the best place for the CD
concerned is the local dumpster. :-)
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

Yes Mike, I am sure to have been able to do without it (along the
way my pc told me it had to do with NetFramework), but I didn't
want to have this showing up every time I do a scan (at least once
a month or so). Therefore I took care of it.
Using this program the way I do hopefully doesn't make me your
enemy. Extending my hand with peace greetings g.