Shoutbox

the files are perfectly fine to be redistributed on dllfiles.com and other places.. microsoft does not care and will even direc you to these sites to get them if you don't have them.

the dll files usually have instructions for installing them, and are sorted by OS so you always get the right verison for your os.

not that it matters, i've been able to successfully run XP dll's on ME machines many a time without an issue ever occuring.

btw, i'd like you to find me the clause which states its illegal to download unmodified dll files if you require them for something.

microsoft has been directing people to dllfiles.com for many a year if you are missing files like the

Msvcp71.dll
Msvcr70.dll
Msvcr71.dll

and inform you where to place them.

these don't tend to come in redestributables anymore as they were for older os's but they work fine in XP for many a program that requires them.

IF it was illegal, microsoft, long ago would have sent cease and desist letters to these sites and they would not be in existance, so obviously the law does not apply to providing original, un modified versions of dll's for usage if you need them.

now if they are modified or hacked.. then that would be different.

but seeing as you own a microsoft product, and many of the missing dll's are usually ms's own, you have full legal right to obtain the dll and file as you have purchased a license to a copy of microsoft windows meaning that if a program doesn't work for you, then you have full right to get the file required to make it work right.

microsoft owes us.. the customers, and if they start suing becoz of this.. then its them that loses out. becoz it will drive away customers and lose millions of  dollars,... i think ms are having enough anti trust problems at the moment.. without losing more customers to Linux and mac...

now iv'e asked a few friends who work for ibm and microsoft and they themselves say that as long as the files are the correct ones for the os, and aren't to be modified or hacked, then the end user has legal right to use them as they own a legally licensed copy of the operating system that requires them.

that in itself means that if the os is missing files then the end user can download the ones they need to fix it.

i've even seen some fresh copies of XP miss files sometimes and having to either download or expand them from the disk.

in the end, downloading them is easier and is basically the same as expanding the same missing file from a disk.

but it people want to be sure that the file is the right one, then they should download and install atleast SP1 as the file is contained in that.

if the person has not got SP1 and is missing the file. then it IS illegal to have the SP1 copy of the file.

but if they do have SP1 and the file is missing then they can download or expand it from the appropriate medium.

when i updated my works systems to SP2 it missed out a couple of files and we could not get the NTVDM to start and could not get bat patching to work.. so i downloaded the files missing from the net.. id like someone to find somene illegal with that?