Spywareblaster2.6.1 says MSCOMCTL.OCX is missing - no it is not!

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by Vanguard, Jan 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vanguard

    Vanguard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    69
    After downloading and installing SpywareBlaster 2.6.1 and running it, it complains that MSCOMCTL.OCX is missing. No, it is *not* missing! I found this file under "C:\Windows\System32". I am running Windows XP SP-1. When I right-click on this file and look at Properties, the Version tab says that it is file version 6.0.88.22. However, the download page at http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html say *NOTHING* about what version it is. Why would I want to download an unknown version of this file which could easily result in replacing a new version of this file with an older one? Why can't SpywareBlaster seem to figure out that this file already exists on my system, especially since it is in a path included in the system PATH environment variable?

    There is obviously a defect in the logic within SpywareBlaster. There is also a deficiency in announcing a download for a replacement file but without giving any information regarding what is its version. So, the best strategy for me is to uninstall SpywareBlaster and wait until the product gets fixed to actually find the existing file and wait until the author updates the download web page to notify users what version of the file will get installed.
     
    Vanguard, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
  2. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,280
    Location:
    New England
    Hi Vanguard,

    Exactly what error did you get? I know the error is not just "MSCOMCTL.OCX is missing." Was it this error?

    Component 'MSCOMCTL.OCX' or one of its dependencies not correctly registered: a file is missing or invalid

    If so, that error can have more than one meaning. Yes, one meaning is that the file may not be there at all, but another can be that it isn't registered properly. You see Javacool's apps are written in Visual Basic and depend upon having the latest version of VB6(SP5) installed properly. SpywareBlaster does not look for that file within the code Javacool wrote, it is merely called as a component of VB itself. On your system, that module may not be registered correctly.

    The installer used to fix that particular problem is just an easier way to get that file installed (if not there) and registered (if that's the problem). It uses the latest release of VB from Microsoft. (In fact, on the SpywareBlaster webpage, right above the link to the small "MSCOMCTL Installer" is the link to the last version of VB6 from the Microsoft site.)

    By the way, I believe your version is fairly out of date. My XP system (with SP1) has v6.1.95.45 from Microsoft.

    You do have a point about listing the version on the website, so we'll have to see what Javacool thinks about that. Perhaps you'll look again at this product in the future. Best wishes.
     
    LowWaterMark, Jan 2, 2004
    #2
  3. Vietnam Vet

    Vietnam Vet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    306
    The version on this 98SE machine is also 6.01.9545 just as further confirmation.
     
    Vietnam Vet, Jan 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Vanguard

    Vanguard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    69
    Okie dokie, I'll wait until after I get Visual Studio 6.0 installed (which will include the VB install) along with the service pack 5 update. Then I'll try a redownload and install of SpywareBlaster.

    While SpywareBlaster has a means to check for updates, I haven't seen an update for SpywareGuard since maybe last August. Since one of the functions of SpywareGuard is to catch spyware as it comes in (like an anti-virus program does), how can SpywareGuard be catching spyware that is newer than the long time ago update of SpywareGuard itself? Without current updates to SpywareGuard (or letting it share the the same database as SpywareBlaster), it pretty much relegates it to just the other features, like locking the home page, etc.
     
    Vanguard, Jan 2, 2004
    #4
  5. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    18,280
    Location:
    New England
    Actually, SpywareGuard has always been updated only occasionally compared to SpywareBlaster because much of its protections are heuristics based. It holds up pretty well to new variants of spyware releases. (And of course as you mentioned, its browser hijack protection needs no signatures.)

    SpywareBlaster's protection on the other hand is totally based upon the entries in its database, so it is updated much more frequently (basically about once a week or so historically speaking).

    SpywareGuard's last update was November 23. SpywareBlaster was updated December 31.
     
    LowWaterMark, Jan 2, 2004
    #5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...