Understanding DLLs in the XP Registry

[docramage]

I want to be a know-all and understand XPs registry - can you help me irritate my friends?

 

CCleaner reports dozens of Missing Shared DLL's.

What does that mean?

How does it find these? It can't surely interrogate my applications for references to DLLs

Perhaps the Registry includes lists of DLLs which each application might need?

 

The common explanation "often left behind after software is uninstalled" is not very helpful when referring to something that's missing.

 

CCleaner offers to "fix these issues" - but that can't surely mean it finds and replaces the DLL references, or indeed the DLLs themselves.

 

Perhaps it means that it removes references within the Registry flagging a DLL that should be there is missing. But, if a DLL is reportedly missing - doesn't that imply that it SHOULD be present? If the reference to its absence is removed, what hope is there that an application requiring that DLL will ever find it.

 

Or does it mean that the Registry itself is mistaken in flagging that a DLL is missing?

 

Lastly: given that all these questions are disturbing my sleep - are there potentially nasty consequences of instructiing CCleaner to "fix" these issues?

 

I'd be grateful if you have the time to answer any of this and satisfy my curiosity. I used to be a DOS expert, and as with my old motor cars, could expect to repair most things with a crowbar and hammer. Bill Gates has a lot to answer for.

 

Philip

[TheFiresInTheSky]

welcome to the forums

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164501

I think there are just keys in the registry which point to a DLL.

If the DLL is missing, CC marks it as a missing shared DLL.

DLLs are often left behind when uninstalling a program because they could be used for more than one program so the uninstaller doesnt delete them.

It is okay to delete most if not all of these missing DLLs.

This is just what I think so dont take me up on my word

-aaron

[rogertdj]

welcome to the forums

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164501

I think there are just keys in the registry which point to a DLL.

If the DLL is missing, CC marks it as a missing shared DLL.

DLLs are often left behind when uninstalling a program because they could be used for more than one program so the uninstaller doesnt delete them.

It is okay to delete most if not all of these missing DLLs.

This is just what I think so dont take me up on my word

-aaron

 

Mostly correct.. the statement "it is okay to delete most if not all of these missing DLL's." was mis-stated. I think what you meant was "It is okay to delete these registry keys, because they no longer point to a file."

 

The registry key and data are what we're deleting, not the file. The file is already missing (not there).

 

The idea here is that the file was deleted by the uninstaller, but the uninstaller did not remove the registry entry. Hence when you do a registry check, you find a link pointing to a file, but there's no file.

 

I tend to agree with the statement that, "it's ok to delete most if not all DLL's where the Uninstaller tells you it's a shared DLL and there will be no other apps sharing it after this app is uninstalled." We used to see this a lot when uninstalling apps... You had to select "yes for all" or be asked 20 times for each app you uninstalled... I believe this to be the best answer. It's rare for this to interfere with another app, and if so you just reinstall that app it should fix the issue.

 

Roger Tiedemann, Jr.

A+, Network+, MCP

[CTskifreak]

WHOA...you just brought up a 3 year old topic. Zombie thread resurrection is not looked highly upon.

 

AJ

[Corona]

Bring out your dead!

[larry39]

WHOA...you just brought up a 3 year old topic. Zombie thread resurrection is not looked highly upon.

 

AJ

 

I have noticed that attitude on other questions in this forum. Why is that?

 

There may be new members (or old members for that matter), who don't know its an old topic and could benefit from the answers or give fresh input to the question.

 

The Lounge is after all described as a 'discuss anything on any topic' section.

[Andavari]

I have noticed that attitude on other questions in this forum. Why is that?

To my knowledge it's almost universal on most forums I've ever visited. Why I don't know, maybe it's just fun to pick on someone by not looking at the date of the last post and replying to something long forgotten. But then again someone doing for instance a Google search will end up finding old topics archived in the virtual attic somewhere.

 

In particular it doesn't really bother me if someone is adding beneficial information for the community.

[Augeas]

Well, it can be rather irritating to open an thread and find that it originated in the precambrian period. The resurrector is replying to someone who posted over two and a half years ago, so they are hardly likely to be still waiting for an answer. The software version is also antique by now. It's much better if one has anything new to say to create a new thread, and in the right forum - this isn't Lounge material.

[rogertdj]

I'm not sure if I should reply to your replies or not, doesn't it just continue a string of useless discussion attached to a comment which was intended only to clarify a particular point?

 

My intention was for people who google a question -- when they read the old topic and are trying to comprehend what's going on, it provides a bit of clarification.

 

I think I spotted a few people asking for clarification on the particulars of "Missing Shared DLL's" but no clear answer. This topic had the closest answer so I added some clarification to give future searchers a more complete answer.

 

If you don't want me to do that, let me know.

 

Roger

[hazelnut]

Roger I think in this instance it has proved helpful for members to see your post.

 

I am sure that you have enough wisdom to realize that some types of old threads would not benefit from this kind of late imput. I am also sure of your ability to work out which ones they are.