Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 Redistributable (x64) 0x80240017 - Unspecified error

Well, it seems I won’t be able to use 2016R1 under Windows 7.

This is X86, but maybe some help:

http://superuser.com/questions/979546/vc-redist-x86-exe-setup-failed-0x80240017-unspecified-error

Or - check you got the right version:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2999226

Thank you Peter. I will try Windows update first.

xojo 2016r1 comes with the libs!?
You should not see an error. And the installer is bundled with the xojo installation. Check the extras folder.

OK. There were several different VC++ redistribuable from 2010, 2013 already installed. Could have been that. I removed all of them, then installed 2016R1 again. Now it works.

It gets me worried about having my customers dealing with that with my apps, though.

In my Win7, I have redist for 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2015. They are installed by programs that require them. If I uninstall any then the program that require it will stop working.

For example, just like if you uninstall redist for 2015 then Xojo itself and all app written with Xojo 2016r1 will stop working.

You may have to re-install those you removed and still needed.

Messy…

DLL hell forever…

I ran various tests yesterday setting up InnoSetup to install the redistributable. I made a clean install of Windows7 32bit Prof and got this same error while trying to install Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 Redistributable (x86) (vc_redist.x86.exe)

Setup Failed: 0x80240017 - Unspecified error

After numerous searches and suggestions of things to install I found that I with a new clean install of Win7 if I ran Windows Update multiple times the redistributable would install. My Xojo app wouldn’t run with just the Windows Update, I still had to install the redistributable.

The thing that wasn’t clear to me is in the Windows Update window, even when it says there are no updates available, you need to click ‘Check or updates’ to make sure it sees the updates required and it took several restarts and checks to get them all.

Hope this helps

P.S. If you still can’t run the redistributable installer I found in a previous test that I was able to install ‘Microsoft Visual C++ 2013 Redistributable (x86)’, then run Windows Update, then run ‘Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 Redistributable (x86)’

Links that may come in handy:

Visual C++ (2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013)
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2977003

Visual C++ (2015)
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=48145

[quote=260151:@Michel Bujardet]OK. There were several different VC++ redistribuable from 2010, 2013 already installed. Could have been that. I removed all of them, then installed 2016R1 again. Now it works.

It gets me worried about having my customers dealing with that with my apps, though.[/quote]
One of my clients has had enough issues with the redistributable NOT installing properly that we went the route of putting the libraries next to the executable. It makes for a messy directory but guaranteed to work.

Using the redistributable installer might be the ‘official’ and preferred way to install but it’s unreliable. Even if it’s fails only 1 out of 100 computers that’s too much! My client failure rates may have been higher than that.

So far, no one has had issues with this alternative method. So until there is a better automated way of doing this, this is what I would recommend.

[quote=283553:@Bob Keeney]One of my clients has had enough issues with the redistributable NOT installing properly that we went the route of putting the libraries next to the executable. It makes for a messy directory but guaranteed to work.

Using the redistributable installer might be the ‘official’ and preferred way to install but it’s unreliable. Even if it’s fails only 1 out of 100 computers that’s too much! My client failure rates may have been higher than that.

So far, no one has had issues with this alternative method. So until there is a better automated way of doing this, this is what I would recommend.[/quote]

I made the same experience.
So i want to put a +1 on this recommendation.

I hope this eventually resolves when everyone gets the runtime via updater?

Actually, the issue may not be so much with recent and standard Windows 10 configurations, but I fear extremely messy stuff with ancient Windows 7 or unconventional Windows 8 installations.

At any rate, I cannot take the risk to have a mountain of support request and angry customers because the “official” way is messy. I’ll do like Bob when I get to the versions that require the redistribuable.

In the meantime, my next release of Check Writer will be using 2015R4.1. Beyond the very real bugs touching TextArea and styledText.RTFData, I cannot chance it for HiDPI support, that on Windows represents an extremely small number of customers.

[quote=283572:@Michel Bujardet]Actually, the issue may not be so much with recent and standard Windows 10 configurations, but I fear extremely messy stuff with ancient Windows 7 or unconventional Windows 8 installations.
[/quote]
I’m not sure about the unconventional part. The Xojo installer had a failure rate of 100% with me (2 for 2 failed installations.) One was BootCamp and one was an actual PC laptop, neither got installed successfully the first time.

We simply cannot risk installation failure.

I also had problems with the redistributable installer. I also ended up putting the files beside the app.

In my case only 1 out of 3 I tried worked with the installer. And in the one where it worked it only worked after some effort. I also would not risk it if I was sending out software to remote clients.

It would be nice if we could get some ‘official’ response from Xojo. I feel like I’m ‘guessing’ which scares me to no end.

+1

I understand this will be a bit offtopic, and potentially flame bait…

It scares me to admit it, but I really don’t want to ‘upgrade’ to Xojo 2016 and beyond.
Each year seems to take away ease of use, and introduce unwanted side effects.

We moved from single exe to mutliple files
Added 20Mb or more of new DLLs to support text features I don’t need.
Moved graphics out of the exe onto disc, slowing down the first use and exposing the files to the end user.
Moved to this new Microsoft DLL hell situation which we haven’t had to worry about for years.
64bit in beta with no sign of a 64bit IDE and debugging on the horizon.
Flicker flicker flicker
And the lingering threat that classic framework will be deprecated because its too much trouble to maintain…

Give me a reason to actively WANT a new Windows version instead of fearing it…please…?

I can say that the number of successful installs of recent Xojo IDEs which use the runtime are not statistically lower from those before we used the runtime, at all. That isn’t to say we haven’t had the support issues here and there. We’ve had a person with a completely corrupt Win7 install, and a couple with Windows Updates stuck in a half-way state. Windows can be fun sometimes.

So in the end, I’m not sure what additional response we could give beyond what we already document. We mirror Microsoft’s strong recommendation to use the redistributable because they can then update those system installs via Windows Update. In fact, Microsoft almost didn’t allow app-local copies of the runtime DLLs at all- but we (along with many others)- basically begged them to still provide that option so we could still provide that option to our users. They finally listened at the end of that development cycle. So we are able to give our users both options- go with Microsoft’s recommendation and use the redistributable, or copy the app-local DLLs and go.

No it is not.

Maybe include the files within your installation and not rely on the redistributable installation? Maybe have a switch that automatically includes the files within the application bundle, or better yet include them by default and have a switch that does not include them for those that want to have “fun” fielding customer install issues?

It constantly feels that Xojo has no problem pushing the Windows “problems” to us instead of trying to “shield” us from them (Jeff sort of nailed it right on).