top of page


Public·13 members
Cooper Roberts
Cooper Roberts

Dll Not Compatible With Version Of Windows

From Winerror.h, 0x00000002 = 2 (ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND). This means "The system cannot find the file specified." In other words, a dependent DLL was not found. For example, typing regsvr32 icwdial.dll with Tapi32.dll (a dependency) missing returns this error message..

dll not compatible with version of windows

But when I try to register the DLLs on a Windows Server 2008 R2 standard SP1 machine, the 64-bit DLL registers successfully, but the 32-bit DLL fails with the message (sic):

Regsvr32.exe is included with Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 or later versions, Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (OSR2) or later versions, and Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 5 (SP5) or later versions. Regsvr32.exe is installed in the System (Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95) or System32 (Windows NT/Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7) folder.

Lack of Backwards Compatibility: The Error arises from a difference in the architecture of the application that you are trying to run and the architecture of Windows. It can either be caused if the program is too old or too recent for the version of Windows that you are trying to run it on. The problem can be solved if the issue is with backward compatibility, as all Microsoft operating systems do have backward compatibility integrated into them but it has to be manually triggered.

In computing, DLL Hell is a term for the complications that arise when one works with dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) used with Microsoft Windows operating systems,[1] particularly legacy 16-bit editions, which all run in a single memory space.

DLLs are Microsoft's implementation of shared libraries. Shared libraries allow common code to be bundled into a wrapper, the DLL, which is used by any application software on the system without loading multiple copies into memory. A simple example might be the GUI text editor, which is widely used by many programs. By placing this code in a DLL, all the applications on the system can use it without using more memory. This contrasts with static libraries, which are functionally similar but copy the code directly into the application. In this case, every application grows by the size of all the libraries it uses, and this can be quite large for modern programs.

A key reason for the version incompatibility is the structure of the DLL file. The file contains a directory of the individual methods (procedures, routines, etc.) contained within the DLL and the types of data they take and return. Even minor changes to the DLL code can cause this directory to be re-arranged, in which case an application that calls a particular method believing it to be the 4th item in the directory might end up calling an entirely different and incompatible routine, which would normally cause the application to crash.

There are several problems commonly encountered with DLLs, especially after numerous applications have been installed and uninstalled on a system. The difficulties include conflicts between DLL versions, difficulty in obtaining required DLLs, and having many unnecessary DLL copies.

A particular version of a library can be compatible with some programs that use it and incompatible with others. Windows has been particularly vulnerable to this because of its emphasis on dynamic linking of C++ libraries and Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) objects. C++ classes export many methods, and a single change to the class, such as a new virtual method, can make it incompatible with programs that were built against an earlier version. Object Linking and Embedding has very strict rules to prevent this: interfaces are required to be stable, and memory managers are not shared. This is insufficient, however, because the semantics of a class can change. A bug fix for one application may result in the removal of a feature from another. Before Windows 2000, Windows was vulnerable to this because the COM class table was shared across all users and processes. Only one COM object in one DLL/EXE could be declared as having a specific global COM Class ID on a system. If any program needed to create an instance of that class, it got whatever was the current centrally registered implementation. As a result, an installation of a program that installed a new version of a common object might inadvertently break other programs that were previously installed.

A common and troublesome problem occurs when a newly installed program overwrites a working system DLL with an earlier, incompatible version. Early examples of this were the ctl3d.dll and ctl3dv2.dll libraries for Windows 3.1: Microsoft-created libraries that third-party publishers would distribute with their software, but each distributing the version they developed with rather than the most recent version.[2] DLL stomping occurs because:

16-bit versions of Windows (and Windows on Windows) load only one instance of any given DLL; all applications reference the same in-memory copy, until no applications are using it and it is unloaded from memory. (For 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows, inter-process sharing occurs only where different executables load a module from exactly the same directory; the code but not the stack is shared between processes through a process called "memory mapping".) Thus, even when the desired DLL is located in a directory where it can be expected to be found, such as in the system directory or the application directory, neither of these instances will be used if another application has started with an incompatible version from a third directory. This issue can manifest itself as a 16-bit application error that occurs only when applications are started in a specific order.

DLL Hell was a very common phenomenon on pre-Windows NT versions of Microsoft operating systems, the primary cause being that the 16-bit operating systems did not restrict processes to their own memory space, thereby not allowing them to load their own version of a shared module that they were compatible with. Application installers were expected to be good citizens and verify DLL version information before overwriting the existing system DLLs. Standard tools to simplify application deployment (which always involves shipping the dependent operating-system DLLs) were provided by Microsoft and other 3rd-party tools vendors. Microsoft even required application vendors to use a standard installer and have their installation program certified to work correctly, before being granted use of the Microsoft logo. The good-citizen installer approach did not mitigate the problem, as the rise in popularity of the Internet provided more opportunities to obtain non-conforming applications.

The ambiguity with which DLLs that are not fully qualified can be loaded in the Windows operating system has been exploited by malware in recent years[when?], opening a new class of vulnerability that affects applications from many different software vendors, as well as Windows itself.[6]

The DLL overwriting problem (referred to as DLL Stomping by Microsoft) was somewhat reduced with Windows File Protection (WFP),[8] which was introduced in Windows 2000.[9] This prevents unauthorized applications from overwriting system DLLs, unless they use the specific Windows APIs that permit this. There may still be a risk that updates from Microsoft are incompatible with existing applications, but this risk is typically reduced in current versions of Windows through the use of side-by-side assemblies.

Third-party applications cannot stomp on OS files unless they bundle legitimate Windows updates with their installer, or if they disable the Windows File Protection service during installation, and on Windows Vista or later also take ownership of system files and grant themselves access. The SFC utility could revert these changes at any time.

Depending on the application architecture and runtime environment, portable applications may be an effective way to reduce some DLL problems, since every program bundles its own private copies of any DLLs it requires.[9] The mechanism relies on applications not fully qualifying the paths to dependent DLLs when loading them, and the operating system searching the executable directory before any shared location.[12] However this technique can also be exploited by malware,[13] and the increased flexibility may also come at the expense of security if the private DLLs are not kept up to date with security patches in the same way that the shared ones are.

The 64-bit versions of Office enable you to move more data around for increased capability, for example when you work with large numbers in Microsoft Excel 2010. When writing 32-bit code, you can use the 64-bit version of Office without any changes. However, when you write 64-bit code, you should ensure that your code contains specific keywords and conditional compilation constants to ensure that the code is backward compatible with earlier version of Office, and that the correct code is being executed if you mix 32-bit and 64-bit code.

Visual Basic for Applications 7.0 (VBA 7) is released in the 64-bit versions for Office, and it works with both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. The changes described in this article apply only to the 64-bit versions of Office. Using the 32-bit versions of Microsoft Office enable you to use solutions built in previous versions of Office without further modifications.

In VBA 7, you must update existing Windows API statements (Declare statements) to work with the 64-bit version. Additionally, you must update address pointers and display window handles in user-defined types that are used by these statements. This is discussed in more detail in this article as well as compatibility issues between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and suggested solutions.

Applications built with the 64-bit versions of Office can reference larger address spaces than 32-bit versions. This means you can use more physical memory for data than before, potentially reducing the overhead spent moving data in and out of physical memory


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page