Tomcat 6 refuses to work in windows 7, it seems the problem is that it needs a 32bit jre, but i don't want to have a 64 and 32 bit installed. I want to get it to work with the 64bit jre and jdk. If anyone has encountered this problem and found a solution please let me know, thank you.
Unless I'm missing something, the Tomcat 6 download page includes a 64-bit Windows version. Is there some reason you can't use that?
I've found one page where the same problem is reported (tomcat 6 won't start as a service in a 64bit windows environment) and a solution is given. The page can be found here (it's in german language but google translate might make it readable).
In brief:
Get tomcat6.exe and tomcat6w.exe from here.
overwrite the original files in your installation
tomcat should now run.
(no guarantee, just translated something I found on the net)
Related
I want to get started with libspotify on my Win 7 machine but I dont have a clue on how to get it all setup so that I can even run the examples included in the pack. I have a Spotify Premium account and I have tried installing libspotify by copying libspotify.dll to c:\windows, c:\windows\system32 and to c:\windows\SysWOW64 and also changed the path variable to include the path where libspotify.dll is located but I still dont understand how to get the examples to work.
I have Code::Blocks installed but as soon as I try to import and run any of the .c files included in the /examples/ folder I get all kinds of error messages. The truth is that I am not even sure how to install libspotify and the documentation is absolutely non existent so for a beginner it is impossible to even have a chance at getting started.
Is there somebody out there who can do a simple walkthrough on how to install libspotify and get the examples up and running on a Win 7 (64-bit) machine?
The only thing I really want to do with libspotify is to be able to via a command prompt or something like that be able to queue a song in Spotify so I dont really care about the other parts. But I can probably solve that by myself as long as I can get an example up and running.
Sadly libspotify is not well-supported on Windows, in fact the example code won't even build because there is no Windows audio driver for them. Your best bet to just get up and running would be to use mingw, or linux in a VirtualBox environment.
I got an application from a client. The application has 2 setup files one for 32 bit OS and other for 64 bit windows OS.
I want to combine them and i want to make 1 exe that runs on all the windows OS and on 32 and 64 bit.
What i need to do ?
Regards,
Behroz
Since: "I got an application from a client."
I would recommend using DotNetInstaller which is a bootstrap for installers.
Then just package both setup files and configure DNI to run the correct setup depending upon the target machine. (It can also be used to install the correct .NET version.)
.. or, ask the client to produce a unified installer :)
I am running my development environment Windows XP. I need access to the function SHGetKnownFolderPath. My team proposes that I simply update my shell32.dll with theirs and update my header files.
The function is documented here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762188%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
Now, understand that the focus of this question is on the viability of overriding/updating the shell32.dll manually via copy-paste. Please do not respond with workarounds/alternatives to the function mentioned above. That is not the point of this question.
Is it safe to simply take the Windows 7 version of shell32.dll and paste over mine (in XP)? I am afraid to test that for fear of murdering my entire operating system. I do not know all of Windows' library inter-dependencies and whether this would even be compatible. It sounds incredibly unstable, but that is what is being proposed I do.
You should not change a Windows DLL manually. A Windows 7 DLL will have dependencies that will not resolve on XP. Even if this worked (very unlikely), next time you install a patch from Windows Update it may either break due to dependencies or replace your Windows 7 DLL back to XP version.
UPDATE: This just won't work. The Windows 7 DLL has dependencies on API sets which did not exist in XP.
Copying manually the dll via copy-paste will not work, because WFP will kick in and restore the original dll. IIRC only digitally-signed updates from Microsoft are allowed to replace system dlls on a running system to avoid messes like this. You should replace the file offline (e.g. from another copy of Windows/BartPE/Linux/...), or disable/workaround WFP in some way. So, it's not practical.
Taking a system dll from another version of Windows and copying it there seems like a terrible idea. The shell changed a lot from Windows XP to Windows 7, I'm sure that there will be a lot of missing dependencies. Even if you managed to copy every file of the Windows 7 shell to Windows XP, these files would depend from newer user32/gdi32/ntdll/... functions added in Vista and 7, so it would not work anyway.
So, I think that the most probable consequence of replacing shell32.dll would be the failure to load almost any non-core component of the OS: failing shell32.dll to load due to missing dependencies, almost any GUI executable that links against it would fail to start. So, it's not safe.
Other than being a problem from a technical standpoint, I strongly suspect that it's also illegal. Having a license for both Windows XP and Windows 7 would not help, I think that this is considered "modification of the software product", that is explicitly disallowed by the Microsoft EULAs. So, it's not legal.
If you want backwards compatibility with XP just use SHGetFolderPath instead of doing all this mess.
Is it safe/practical to manually update shell32.dll in
Windows XP?
No.
shell32.dll is a core operating system file. I would expect that minus the other dependencies underneath the Windows 7 version you would have all sorts of unexpected behaviors. It would be better to test within a VM a complete Windows 7 environment rather than copy over a part of another version of an operating system.
Bigger questions: Do you think anyone at Microsoft every tested this exact combination? If you run into issues and you call support do you believe that you will find that your configuration is a supported one for your efforts? Having worked for MSFT in the past I would think that the answer to both is likely not.
Probably they know what they're saying. Anyway I would suggest you creating a system restore point and, just in case, downloading a minimal linux distribution so that, in extreme cases (i.e. windows can't boot), you simply restore their shell32.dll with yours.
I don't think so...
But if still want to try, then i suggest you install a virtual machine and try it there. this way much safer.
For a while I was stuck trying to get a visual basic 6 app working in Windows 7. The last remaining snag was that it just couldn't find the DSN when starting up. On a hunch, I deleted the system DSN and created it exactly the same way, but in Users. Suddenly everything worked great. I couldn't beleive it so I tried to move it back to system thinking I may have had something wrong, but sure enough it was broken again.
I can't seem to find anyone else running into this in my google searches, but does any one have any ideas as to why this might happen?
I'de really like to go back to using the system DSN as that's easier to manage.
Thanks!
What happens if you start your VB6 application by right-clicking the icon and choosing "Run as administrator"? I suspect you would then see the System DSNs (which are presumably only visible to admin-level accounts).
Update: I think this will work - set up your system DSN by running this:
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\odbcad32.exe
I think the problem is that the default Win7 interface for configuring DSNs makes them 64-bit, but you need a 32-bit DSN to work with VB6. </PUREGUESSWORK>
I'm having Internet Explorer 6 problems on one of my sites, and I really wish I had it installed instead of Internet Explorer 7. Is there a quick way to do this?
Download Microsoft VirtualPC. Then download any of the files in Internet Explorer Application Compatibility VPC Image. The second download contains four VHD (virtual hard drive) files which have:
XP SP2
IE 7
XP SP3
IE 6, IE 8 Beta 2
Vista SP1
IE 7
Multiple IE:
It is possible to run Internet Explorer in standalone mode without having to over-write previous versions thanks to Joe Maddalone who came up with a way of achieving that in November 2003. Basically, Internet Explorer is run by exploiting a known workaround to DLL hell - which was introduced in Windows 2000 and later versions - called DLL redirection.
Manfred Staudinger perfected the standalone versions by adding IE version numbers to the title bar of the standalone browser window. Moreover, by removing the "IE" key in the registry subkey [HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Version Vector] Internet Explore defaulted to respecting conditional comments based on the version number prebuilt in the program.
It is not difficult to follow the instructions and get any version of IE running in standalone along side other versions. Most of you probably know of evolt's archive of Internet Explorer which has them readily packaged in ZIP files. Now suppose you want to download them all. An installer that would conveniently automate the whole process would be great. Thanks to this comment for the idea.
So I made an installer which contains IE3 IE4.01 IE5 IE5.5 and IE6...
Download Virtual PC and set up a bunch of them for testing with various browsers/OS's. Once set up, this makes it trivial to test on IE6,7 and 8, various Firefox flavours, Konqueror, Opera, Safari, etc...
See Samuel's answer for a helpful VPC image in getting this started:
I recommend always testing your sites using BrowserShots. You can see how your site looks across multiple browsers, with multiple versions, on multiple operating systems. You can do something like 50 tests a day on their free service.
Also check out IETester, which gives you 5.5, 6, 7, 8b2 in one app.
Litmus is another BrowserShots-esque service.
This works fine for me: Multiple IE
Edit: looks like the minute it took me to find the URL was enough for 3 people to beat me to it..wow
IETester is pretty good, compare IE5.5/IE6/IE7/IE8 side by side.