Microsoft, dumb?

I think microsoft should add the vbruntime dll's to windows so we dont have to include them in our programs. Why dont they?

[HaxSoft]

As a matter of fact, I think Microsoft did that with Windows 98. As far as I know, the VB6 run-time DLLs are included in Windows 98, 2nd Edition.

But really, is it not more a question of "why have run-time DLLs at all?"

Why can't Visual Basic compile stand-alone EXE files that do not need run-time DLLs? Visual C++ can do that. Instead of relying on the DLL file, the compiler would have to link a number of LIB files to the executable.

It would mean slightly larger EXE files, but so what? The web is getting faster and disks are getting bigger.

I agree, but they are using them so they probably have a reason to. So they might as well include them with Windows.

HaxSoft

I have Windows 98, and I don't think it came with any DLL's...

[shinned]

It is indeed packed with Windows 98 SE, you just have to use CreateObject to reference to MS Windows Runtime Scripting, otherwise, add it to your VB project references.

Wait, i just checked and I do have the Runtime files! :)

[HaxSoft]

Hi Megatron and Shinned

OK, so they are at least included with Win 98 SE ... I wasn't 100% sure. How about Win 2000? Does anyone know if they are included there?