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