Talk:Microsoft Windows library files
|This article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|Microsoft Windows library files was integrated by the now inactive Wikipedia Integration WikiProject|
Cwolfsheep 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Should this article be deleted or merged with Microsoft Windows? It seems to overspecialise. Lordofthe9 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Or perhaps rather with Dynamic-link library? The problem with an article like this is to me that I think it's hard to know where to draw the line. MSVCRT.DLL info would for example rather belong to a section on the Microsoft C++ Runtime in the article Microsoft Visual C++. Hmm... — Northgrove 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
how can you fix a damaged User32.dll?--Sugarcubez 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Wikipedia is not a how-to or discussion forum. Lordofthe9 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In the HAL.dll section, HAL(Hardware Abstraction Layer), a part of the kernel, seems to be confused with PAL(Phase Alternating Line), an European television standard. If there is no opposition, I will correct it within 1 month (I am doing this incase the author meant PAL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The HAL has nothing to do with television. I'll correct it to HAL instead. -- Prince Kassad 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Applications built with Visual C++ 2005, 2008, ... require specific versions of Msvcr80.dll, Msvcr90.dll etc., providing the same services as the old Msvcrt.dll. These have a number of releases (8.00.40310.39, 8.0.50727.762 etc.) that are typically managed using the Side-by-Side Assembly mechanism. Warwick.fifield (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for deletion and merge of kernel32 and gdi32 articles
I can't see any of the DLL-specific descriptions here growing to more than a few paragraphs - most of them less than that. Kernel32 in particular is just a couple of sentences. GDI32 doesn't even exist. I don't think these merit separate articles.
Proposal: The text in Kernel32 should be merged here and that article nominated for Speedy Deletion, and the redlink to Gdi32 should be removed.
- As there was no dissent, or discussion of any sort, for 10 days I just went ahead and did it. Proceeding with the merge proposal for user32.dll, following. Since there is slightly more "meat" in that article I'm doing it more formally. Jeh (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for merge of user32.dll article
As with the article on kernel32.dll there is really no point in having a separate article for user32.dll. The existing User32.dll contains only a few API names and those should not be on WP anyway. I propose that user32.dll be merged into this article. All we need here is a description of the types of API it exposes - the details can be left to Microsoft's Win32 documentation and other books covering the topic. Jeh (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for deletion
The proposal for deletion is misguided in almost every detail.
- "Discussion of Windows Library files one-by-one is futile; There are so many dll files around" Yes, there are many, but just because a job can't be done completely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted at all. An explanation of a few of the key API DLLs, such as is already here, is helpful.
- "and information stored here is rapidly rendered obsolete." No, just about everything here applies to everything from Windows NT 3.1 through Windows 7.
- "Also, "Library Files" are not only DLL nowadays, article title may be misleading and could provide the new user with false and/or obsolete information." So, that can be fixed with a sentence or two indicating that .cpl, .scr, and a few other file types are really the same as thing under other names. Speaking of that, many of those do not need a section per file, they can be described en masse. No need to enumerate every one, which further erodes the deletioner's first claim.
Proposal to move to wikibooks
Is there a cartel agitating to get rid of this article or something? I'm trying to improve it, my first step (getting rid of the redundant kernel32.dll article so that additions will be focused here) is done, second step (same for user32.dll) is in process. So what happens?
Shortly after I post the user32 merge proposal, one editor comes along and proposed it for deletion.
Now an IP who seems to have had little involvement with Windows-related articles in the past wants to move it to wikibooks pending "rewriting into an encyclopedic article."
And just like the previous would-be deleter, without so much as a peep here on the talk page. Aren't you supposed to create a section for discussion?
- I don't like your accusatory tone. I removed the PROD, didn't I? I guess I just should have ignored the PROD, but I didn't think it was worth deleting, since someone did think it was worth deleting, a safe place to stash it would be Wikibooks, which is not bound by needing to be encyclopedic to a general audience, what a mistake I made, if I ignored it, I wouldn't need to get into some sort of discussion war. Sheesh, try to save an article, and get grief from other people wanting to save it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, let's put this up for AfD, then we can get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this thing. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well you might understand that I'm feeling a little attacked here... two deletion attempts in two days, right after I started working on it. And I don't understand how moving it to Wikibooks is "saving" it; it's still being deleted from WP. If "I guess I just should have deleted the PROD", why then put it up for AfD? Why put it up for AfD after I've said I am trying to improve the article? Not much of a way to motivate a contributor. I request that you withdraw your AfD. Failing that, I repeat.. can you please tell me what specifically you think is wrong? Jeh (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It means that when an exe calls a function such as NtReadFile, that routine is found in ntdll.dll. Conversely the executable is said to "import" the function. (However no actual copying of code is done, as would happen with an object library - the "exported" function does not become part of the exe.) Similarly, objects in object-oriented environments are said to "export" the methods they define. Jeh (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It has to do with the compiler deferring some symbol resolution steps to the linker -- there is a good free book on the subject, by John Levine titled "Linkers and Loaders". 04:01, 19 September 2010 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
This article seems to cover only Windows NT based operating systems (it contains some DLLs that are NT-exclusive and some that can be found in 9x and NT), so imho it should be renamde to Microsoft Windows NT library files. --MrBurns (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Windows is getting more and more bloated with time in the name of compatibility. A striped down version of a modern Windows operating system can fit in a fraction of a CD. If this article is going to cover most dlls, we should rename it to "List of Windows dynamic link libraries". If we are going to cover only some dlls, we should rename it to "Notable Windows dynamic link libraries".
- The renamed title should include the word "dynamic" because this article does not list any static libraries.
- The current name of this article may also cause confusion because it might make the reader think it's about Portable Executable dynamic link libraries. Library files of the Microsoft Windows operating system are in this format.
- --M4t3uz (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The primary criterion for an article title is that when it shows up in search results, it tells the searcher whether or not the article is of interest to them. I don't think the general reader is aware of the "Windows NT" heritage of current Windows operating systems. I think the general reader, upon seeing the name "Windows NT library files", would say "no, that's not for me, I'm running XP/7/whatever". Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Confusion with MSVCRT
Hi there i have MSVCRT on my computer i run window's XP 32Bit i found this proces in my task manager and in "Configurationscreen>Software" i still have a progy on my laptop called Regedit by juony vurio it showed MSVCRT in the registry and i could uninstal it first i did a file check as in google what it is becouse it sounds suspicious so i went to norton to see whats up that confused me evenmore so to be safe i tryed to uninstal it and all seems to work just normal no wierd things going on so i clean registry run virus/malware scanner's and reboot check out if its gone and yes it is exept in "Configurationscreen>Software" there it still remains cant do annything with it :/ my question is is this a normal standard windows program or is this a stuborn virus i even went to the cop's and the tell me it's a police virus plx some clarification on the subject lol ty in advance