>>>>I saw some thread about what files are nesesary for proper instalation of VFP runtime without using VFP setup wizard
>>>>Does anybody knows why its so difficult to Microsoft to write down ONE page with detailed decription what to do. It seems so simple. Or maybe there is allready such file.
>>>
>>>I'm not a Microsoft apologist; in fact, I'm annoyed that Microsoft hasn't provided a more detailed description of the runtime dependencies for VFP and VFP executables. But providing, as you speculate, a one page description of file requirements, isn't a simple thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>My best advise if you aren't satisfied with Setup Wizard installs in general is to learn one of the third-party instllers really well, and use that to do most of your install, relying on a minimal Setup Wizard install to put the runtime in place. If you don't want to learn a third-party installer, create a post-setup executable to perform most of your installation after VFP's Setup Wizard install finishes, and have your post-setup executable called automatically from a Setup Wizard script
>>
>>
>>Hi Ed !
>>
>>You are very kind aswering me in such detailed way. I think your suggestions are good. And if people in Poland would speek in English, I would stay with setup wizard cos' my instalations are rather simple. ("quiet" instalation shows messages when sometthig goes wrong). Yesterday I download demo of wise install builder. It supports VFP 6 and I can customize messages and dialog forms.It is not too expencive (350$). I vote for wise.
>
>I've never used Wise, so I really can't speak to how well it works. I have a lot of time invested in InstallShield and the Windows Scripting Host, and have yet to find something I can't script in InstallShield Pro. It's probably a whole lot more work up front than something like Wise or Sax (I downloaded a demo of it over the weekend; it looked fairly interesting, but had -lots- of trouble with my NT environment; it kept popping up warnings about potentially dangerous ActiveX content (I have my security on intranet stuff set fairly high) and it didn't seem worth the effort since I have InstallShield working the way I want it to.) but it does everything I want to, and I can extend it with both .DLLs and COM components pretty easily.
>
>>PS. I think it is not difficult to write down even 20 pages when writing person knows what files and in which version are necessary, and which registry entry are needed, and what to do when a file is in use. As a programer I want to know what makes VFP working properly. And another thing - when I read so many threads about COOOOOO5 error and see no Fox Team explanation. I think Microsoft ignores my time or they haven't know what is going too or they knows but can't say it.
>
>The problem is, the C0000005 error isn't really just one thing - it's a symptom of a whole class of faults that the operating system traps, not VFP. It happens that one common cause is addressed by the DCOM fix; what's alarming is that people are assuming that since the DCOM fix takes care of that one problem, it should be a panacea for all C0000005 errors that occur in VFP (or even other apps) and it isn't. Unfortunately, tracing down the cause of these errors is a time-consuming bit of detective work, and unless you can isolte the environmental issues, you run the risk of finding a fix that works in some cases but not in others. See my messages with bela Bodecs, who originally thought that the indidcator I found for whether DCOM was installed might not apply for international versions of Win95...
>
>It would be nice to see the Fox support people from Microsoft step in here and address these issues publicly. Unfortunately, I can't afford to wait until fixing these bugs is a priority for them; there are other issues like problems with MTS and the threading model that have to be addressed to make the product viable at all in the COM marketplace. I expect that a number of problems are going to be addressed by workarounds like I've found, which are going to require considerable effort for developers to address. If it weren't for COM object requirements and the attraction of the new classes and object oriented extensions, I'd be inclined to stick with VFP 5 until I saw Microsoft make a solid effort to improve the stability of the VFP 6 platform.

Hello Ed!

Since our last thread, I check other Hungarian and Pan European Windows version. Your suggestion WORKS! The registry keys really show the existence of DCOM95 ver 1.2. (And since then I found info about it in MSDN.) You are Right!!

Installing: I wrote an install program in VFP, when I faced the problem described here. English language messages are not appropiate all hungarian users. (My install doesnot handle all possibble scenario, but practically, it is usable.)

BB