Interface not registered

By sr51463
Aug 24, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. sr51463

    sr51463 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 55

    Sure. It's last access time was Friday, July 01, 2011.

    Attached Files:

  2. gbhall

    gbhall TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,327   +49

    LookinAround likes this.
  3. LookinAround

    LookinAround TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 8,358   +167

    gbhall Thanks for the tip! Will remember/take a look for the future.
  4. Shadad

    Shadad Newcomer, in training

    Holly crap !!

    Do you know how badly I searched every where about fixing this issue and I got no solution for it ?

    do you know that since this issue happened I couldn't : linked fire fox and Internet download manager to show me ( open ) the folders of the downloaded files, running system restore, open personalize menu...and for sure updating the damn nVidia video card !
    I almost decided to re image the whole operation system just because of this. your absolutely right! I was registering the file that located on the directory : c:\windows\system32\actxprxy.dll which most of web sits suggest this!

    now after I register that file again on the location you mentioned it work! I cant believe I was stuck with this since 4 months! my god it was like a nightmare. even games never run good cause I couldnt update the VGA drive and now am sure I will be able to do that now since this eliminate every stupid " interface not supported " mumbo jumbo dialogs I have every where on the OS before.
    am an IT on very big medical organization and I would like to thank you from the deepest place in my heart. I only register on this site just to say this to you.


    Thanks for every body who work on this problem and sorry for my weak language.

    Cheers :)
  5. gbhall

    gbhall TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,327   +49

    Interesting - you're saying registering the active-x proxy .dll in system32 does not solve a range of problems, but registering it in syswow64 does ? That is the location for 32-bit versions of dlls on a 64-bit system. So there is clear evidence of a failure by systems engineers to fully solve the problems of running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system.
    It would not be at all surprising if a few 64-bit applications stopped working instead now ??
  6. LookinAround

    LookinAround TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 8,358   +167

    Shadad
    Happy to hear this thread helped you too!! Thanks for posting!.

    gbhall
    This is what I discovered while working on this thread (I used a Windows 7 x64bit machine). When you're running 64-bit Windows
    • Some DLLs and EXEs have both 32- and 64-bit specific versions. While there are other DLLs and EXEs which have only a single version that can run under both 32- and 64-bit environments
      • If it's 32-bit specific, it's stored in C:\Windows\SysWOW64\
      • If it's 64-bit specific, it's stored in C:\Windows\system32\
      • If it works under both 32 and 64 bit, it's also stored in C:\Windows\system32\
    • Regsvr32 is the program which registers DLLs/EXEs/etc. It has two different versions.
      • Run the 32-bit version under SysWow64 to register 32-bit
      • Run the 64-bit version under System 32 to register 64-bit
    • A 32-bit apps (like Firefox) is also stored in SysWow64 Program Files (x86) and it looks at 32-bit registered DLLs (such as the 32-bit version of actxprxy.dll in the SysWow64 directory - that was missing in these user's cases!)
    • A 64-bit app will look at the list of 64-bit registered software
    You can visualize this yourself by running both the 32 and 64-bit versions of RegDllView. Each version of RegDllView displays the current list and location of 32 and 64- bit components

    /* EDIT */
    So IMO, I don't think registering a 32-bit version of a DLL should affect 64 bit apps. 64-bit apps will be looking for DLLs maintained on a different list

    /* EDIT 2 */
    Corrected the storage location of 32-bit apps above
    gbhall likes this.
  7. gbhall

    gbhall TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,327   +49

    So the registration of 32- and 64-bit versions with the same name probably goes to different parts of the registry - (due to using a different registration exe but with the same name = regsrvr32.exe) in different locations.

    It still makes little sense - why not have regsrv32.exe and regsvr64.exe ? Looks like a typical example of MS over-complication (try searching for 'regsrv' for example), and explains why a MS update of October 2013 messed up millions of PC USB services world-wide. They don't understand their own systems.
  8. LookinAround

    LookinAround TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 8,358   +167


    I agree. I think it only makes it harder for developers (and everyone else) to have that same name for both 32- and 64-bit contexts. And have to determine if the right regsrv32 was called with the right s/w component, but I guess that's M$ for you! :confused:


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.