Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.ms-access > #9254 > unrolled thread

2010: TreeView Missing?

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.ms-access

Contents

  2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-15 17:19 -0400
    Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-15 17:37 -0400
      Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Phil" <phil@stantonfamily.co.uk> - 2014-04-16 09:10 +0100
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 09:10 -0400
      Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Ron Paii" <None@none.com> - 2014-04-16 07:04 -0500
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 09:11 -0400
          Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Ron Paii" <None@none.com> - 2014-04-16 16:12 -0500
            Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 19:27 -0400
              Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Ron Paii" <None@none.com> - 2014-04-17 08:26 -0500
                Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-17 10:43 -0400
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 09:17 -0400
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 09:56 -0400
    Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 09:53 -0400
      Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOSpamkallal@msn.com> - 2014-04-16 14:05 -0600
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-16 19:36 -0400
          Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? kduc <kduc@numerifil.invalid> - 2014-04-17 09:26 +0200
    Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-17 11:37 -0400
      Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "Phil" <phil@stantonfamily.co.uk> - 2014-04-17 17:02 +0100
        Re: 2010: TreeView Missing? "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2014-04-17 12:51 -0400

#9254 — 2010: TreeView Missing?

Started running my Access 2003 app under Windows 7 and Office 2010 and
Access 2010 started throwing errors when the app tried to use MSCOMCTL's
TreeView:  

Googling, I come away with this little gem: 

"COM TreeView functionality has been removed from the 64-bit version of
Office, and that Microsoft currently has no intention of rectifying this
situation."

But the post that quote came from was a few years old....

Can anybody point me in the right direction for a workaround?

This is a beeeeeeg deal here, as IT has pushed Windows 7/Office 2010
down to everybody who had XP/Office 2007.

Yeah... shoulda tested beforehand....  But I couldn't get them to
install 2010 or hold off on the push.

Help!

-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9255

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Can anybody point me in the right direction for a workaround?

FWIW, my MSCOMCTL.OCX is in C:\Windows\SysWow64 and Access is pointing
to it.   Modified/Created stamps are 10/19/2009 13:28, Size=1.01 MB.

I'm reading the suggested fix at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2597986
wherein they delete a registry entry, and then manually register
MSCOMCTL.OCX.

It seems to read a lot like the FMS fix for the MS update that hosed
2003/2007 a couple years back.

But the question remains: is TreeView still part of MSCOMCTL under 2010,
or do I need to look elsewhere?
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9256

On 15/04/2014 22:37:20, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
> Per (PeteCresswell):
>>Can anybody point me in the right direction for a workaround?
> 
> FWIW, my MSCOMCTL.OCX is in C:\Windows\SysWow64 and Access is pointing
> to it.   Modified/Created stamps are 10/19/2009 13:28, Size=1.01 MB.
> 
> I'm reading the suggested fix at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2597986
> wherein they delete a registry entry, and then manually register
> MSCOMCTL.OCX.
> 
> It seems to read a lot like the FMS fix for the MS update that hosed
> 2003/2007 a couple years back.
> 
> But the question remains: is TreeView still part of MSCOMCTL under 2010,
> or do I need to look elsewhere?

This has been a perpetual pain, and the MSCOMCTL version seems critical.

I use version 6.01.9834 with Windows 7 & 32 bit Access 2010. As far as I
remember, the problem cropped up after I upgraded to SP1 on 1 machine, but it
was OK on another machine.

I can send you my copy of MSCOMCTL if it helps.

Phil

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9259

Per Phil:
>
>I can send you my copy of MSCOMCTL if it helps.

Thanks!   I will give it a try - but Ron Paii's observation applies to
me: 64-bit all the way.

OTOH, v6.01.9834 keeps coming up when I Google this.

My email addr is Confirm @ fatbelly fullstop com
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9258

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message 
news:oe9rk995ao54v7eeqbsjceet1rfoggdihd@4ax.com...
> Per (PeteCresswell):
>>Can anybody point me in the right direction for a workaround?
>
> FWIW, my MSCOMCTL.OCX is in C:\Windows\SysWow64 and Access is pointing
> to it.   Modified/Created stamps are 10/19/2009 13:28, Size=1.01 MB.
>
> I'm reading the suggested fix at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2597986
> wherein they delete a registry entry, and then manually register
> MSCOMCTL.OCX.
>
> It seems to read a lot like the FMS fix for the MS update that hosed
> 2003/2007 a couple years back.
>
> But the question remains: is TreeView still part of MSCOMCTL under 2010,
> or do I need to look elsewhere?
> -- 
> Pete Cresswell

I am using it on W7 64bit, Office 10 and 13 32bit. I don't think it will 
work on Office 64bit. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9260

Per Ron Paii:
>
>
>I am using it on W7 64bit, Office 10 and 13 32bit. I don't think it will 
>work on Office 64bit. 

Assuming everything's working for you, can you take a look at your
MSCOMCTL.OCX and get the version number/created date/size?
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9265

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message 
news:8b0tk9lom7jqe1g6s2v16ge2dtu45f9pl2@4ax.com...
> Per Ron Paii:
>>
>>
>>I am using it on W7 64bit, Office 10 and 13 32bit. I don't think it will
>>work on Office 64bit.
>
> Assuming everything's working for you, can you take a look at your
> MSCOMCTL.OCX and get the version number/created date/size?
> -- 
> Pete Cresswell

File Version 6.01.98.33
Date modified 2/14/12 11:09 AM
Size 1.02 MB 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9266

Per Ron Paii:
>File Version 6.01.98.33
>Date modified 2/14/12 11:09 AM
>Size 1.02 MB 

Can I take you up on the offer to email a copy to me?

Confirm at fatbelly fullstop com.
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9269

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message 
news:1d4uk9p7qim4o4mmcgqjd4ev5oulcqkc23@4ax.com...
> Per Ron Paii:
>>File Version 6.01.98.33
>>Date modified 2/14/12 11:09 AM
>>Size 1.02 MB
>
> Can I take you up on the offer to email a copy to me?
>
> Confirm at fatbelly fullstop com.
> -- 
> Pete Cresswell

Could not get the email to work. Send ron_m an email to packairinc, I will 
reply with the file attached. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9270

Per Ron Paii:
>
>Could not get the email to work. Send ron_m an email to packairinc, I will 
>reply with the file attached. 

That just became moot.   I found a later version on one of my developer
boxes.

But my little theory did not pan out.

My apologies for jerking you around, but thanks for the offer.
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9261

Per Ron Paii:
>I am using it on W7 64bit, Office 10 and 13 32bit. I don't think it will 
>work on Office 64bit. 

I come away from thread here http://tinyurl.com/mrntmhg thinking that
there is no TreeView in 64-bit Office.    Does anybody disagree?
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9263

Per Ron Paii:
>I am using it on W7 64bit, Office 10 and 13 32bit. I don't think it will 
>work on Office 64bit. 

At the risk of further polluting this thread with my own responses, I
can now say that I have the same environment as you: W7 64-bit with
Office 10 32-bit.

So bring on that v6.01.9834 OCX !!!!!

Confirm at fatbelly fullstop com.
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9262

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Googling, I come away with...

It's starting to jell now.

There are two versions of Office 2010: 32-bit and 64-bit.

The 64-bit version has dropped support for MSCOMCTL.OCX (or there is no
such .OCX.... I'm not sure).

If you have the 32-bit version all should be well.  If you have the
64-bit version, either re-install using 32-bit or look for another
TreeView control.

But I have the 32-bit version of Office installed on my 64-bit Windows 7
box and all is decidedly not well.

-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9264

"(PeteCresswell)"  wrote in message 
news:kn1tk91b45dhn1kpn95v2757igns7r20cu@4ax.com...

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Googling, I come away with...

>It's starting to jell now.

The 32 bit version of office is recommend. The confusing here is when you 
“wrongly” claimed you are 64 bit all the way.


And I assume you recall upgrading from 8 to 16 to 32 bit computers over the 
years?

In each case, you can NEVER MIX bit size software. Most 16 bit computers 
could run 8 bit software.

Windows 7 (x64) has BOTH sets of binaries (x32) and x64 to allow it running 
of x32 and x64 bit software.

However, Access 32 can only use 32 bit ActiveX objects like the tree view. 
And this issue crops up if you building com (ActiveX) objects from .net (you 
want to force the .net compile to the given office bit size).


Given the above?

>The 64-bit version has dropped support for MSCOMCTL.OCX (or there is no
such .OCX.... I'm not sure).


Access 64 bit can consume ActiveX (ocx) without problems. So no support in 
Access has been dropped.

And MSCOMCTL.OCX is NOT part of office (so I have no idea why you suggest 
this idea).

The simple issue here is that there is no 64 bit version of MSCOMCTRL.OCX.

So if you going to use EXTERNAL libraries from Access you need to ensure 
they match the bit size.

And the SAME issue exists if you have any windows API code – if you use 
Access 64 then you need to change your windows API calls to use 64 bit code.

Note that Access 2010 has a new version of VBA (VBA 7) in which support for 
64 bit windows is included. And this also includes a new 64 bit data type 
variable in VBA called longLong.

As for using the common controls OCX? I thought that was installed when you 
using VB6 or the VB runtimes are installed.

If the object appears in tools->references, then you should be able to use 
that ActiveX control/object, but only if you have a copy installed on your 
target computer. And note that often a “simple” copy of the .dll/ocx will 
NOT allow one to register such a object. This restriction is due to 
licensing systems built in – this was introduced in windows 3.1). So if you 
develop a cool calendar or treeveiw or even so cool “slider” control then 
OTHER developers cannot simply copy or use that .dll/ocx and use it with 
their software. So depending on the kind of ocx, you need a windows 
installer to by-pass licensing restrictions. (or you can copy a developer 
edition to each machine – but that not legal!)

So Access 64 bit supports ActiveX, but there are FEW ActiveX written for x64 
bits. One big reason is that VB6 (now well over 11 years old) is only x32 
bit. And in .net they not using such controls. So few vendors exist that are 
creating x64 bit ActiveX controls.

However, tlist7 here is VERY nice and I have used the x32 bit version in the 
past:

http://www.bennet-tec.com/btproducts/TList/TList.htm

I don’t know if they plan x64 bit versions, but even for x32 the above would 
a great choice.

However the existing reeview can and should work with 2010/2013 versions of 
Access as long as one chooses the x32 bit version of Access. However, the 
issue remains of deploying and ensuing that a legitimate copy of the 
treeview control is ALSO installed on the target machine.

Best regards,
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
nospam_kallal@msn.com 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9267

Per Albert D. Kallal:
>However the existing reeview can and should work with 2010/2013 versions of 
>Access as long as one chooses the x32 bit version of Access. However, the 
>issue remains of deploying and ensuing that a legitimate copy of the 
>treeview control is ALSO installed on the target machine.

I am developing a suspicion that something is going on akin to the
August 2012 security update - where MSCOMCTRL did not exactly fail, but
started acting strangely until some de-registering/re-registering was
done as per FMS' procedure at 
https://www.fmsinc.com/MicrosoftAccess/Controls/mscomctl/

My current goal is to obtain a copy of the more recent MSCOMCTL.OCX
(v6.01.98+) and use it in following FMS' procedure in hopes that I get
lucky.

My users have been dead in the water for three days now and things are
getting critical.
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9268

Le 17/04/2014 01:36, (PeteCresswell) a écrit :
> Per Albert D. Kallal:
>> However the existing reeview can and should work with 2010/2013 versions of 
>> Access as long as one chooses the x32 bit version of Access. However, the 
>> issue remains of deploying and ensuing that a legitimate copy of the 
>> treeview control is ALSO installed on the target machine.
> 
> I am developing a suspicion that something is going on akin to the
> August 2012 security update - where MSCOMCTRL did not exactly fail, but
> started acting strangely until some de-registering/re-registering was
> done as per FMS' procedure at 
> https://www.fmsinc.com/MicrosoftAccess/Controls/mscomctl/
> 
> My current goal is to obtain a copy of the more recent MSCOMCTL.OCX
> (v6.01.98+) and use it in following FMS' procedure in hopes that I get
> lucky.
> 
> My users have been dead in the water for three days now and things are
> getting critical.

MSCOMCTRL must be compatible whith your version of regsvr32.exe

1: Download this one :
http://members.home.nl/w.speek/download/MSCOMCTL.ZIP

2: Extract the archive into C:/Windows/SysWow64/
 Go to (in french) | démarer | tous les programmes | accessoires | and
right click on | invite de commande | choose option | execute as
administrateur |

3: Type : cd C:\Windows\SysWOW64C:\Windows\SysWOW64

4: Type : regsvr32 mscomctl.ocx

Best regards.

-- 
kd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9271

My little theory about it being an MSCOMCTL problem seems to have been
disproved.

Going back to basics, I fell back to just running under Access 2003 and
I now have a version of the app that will run a-ok on my home developer
PC but fails on the corporate PC.

======================================
Home Developer PC:

- Windows 7 Professional SP1
- Office Professional 2003 
  Access v11.5614.6360
-------------------------------------
Corporate PC:

- Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 v3
- Office Professional 2003
  Access v11.5614.5703
======================================

The only zinger is that the corporate PC is not "virgin".

Instead, it began life with Office 2010 installed.

An hour ago, The Help Desk claimed that Access 2003 could be 
installed on top of 2010 and that's what they did in response
to my request to change the PC so that only Access 2003 
was installed and not Access 2010.

Of course, it did not work - and I have read multiple posts
on the MS support fora saying that these things have to be
installed in order of age.

So I did an uninstall of Access 2003 and rebooted.

Then I did a total uninstall of Office 2010 and rebooted.

Finally, I did a "Complete Install" of Office 2003.


Now the same errors as what started this debacle can
be provoked on the corporate box, while the home box
runs a-ok - same version of the app.

I guess the next logical step is to re-image the corporate
PC with just Window 7 Enterprise SP1 v3 and then manually
install Office 2003.    And, if that works, try installing
everything in Office 2010 except Access.

Beau coups billable hours....

Before I go there, can anybody suggest anything else?

The corporate PC's having had 2010 on it before makes it suspect, right?


-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9272

On 17/04/2014 16:37:20, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
> My little theory about it being an MSCOMCTL problem seems to have been
> disproved.
> 
> Going back to basics, I fell back to just running under Access 2003 and
> I now have a version of the app that will run a-ok on my home developer
> PC but fails on the corporate PC.
> 
> =====================================Home Developer PC:
> 
> - Windows 7 Professional SP1
> - Office Professional 2003
> Access v11.5614.6360
> -------------------------------------
> Corporate PC:
> 
> - Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 v3
> - Office Professional 2003
> Access v11.5614.5703
> ====================================The only zinger is that the corporate
> PC is not "virgin".
> 
> Instead, it began life with Office 2010 installed.
> 
> An hour ago, The Help Desk claimed that Access 2003 could be
> installed on top of 2010 and that's what they did in response
> to my request to change the PC so that only Access 2003
> was installed and not Access 2010.
> 
> Of course, it did not work - and I have read multiple posts
> on the MS support fora saying that these things have to be
> installed in order of age.
> 
> So I did an uninstall of Access 2003 and rebooted.
> 
> Then I did a total uninstall of Office 2010 and rebooted.
> 
> Finally, I did a "Complete Install" of Office 2003.
> 
> 
> Now the same errors as what started this debacle can
> be provoked on the corporate box, while the home box
> runs a-ok - same version of the app.
> 
> I guess the next logical step is to re-image the corporate
> PC with just Window 7 Enterprise SP1 v3 and then manually
> install Office 2003.    And, if that works, try installing
> everything in Office 2010 except Access.
> 
> Beau coups billable hours....
> 
> Before I go there, can anybody suggest anything else?
> 
> The corporate PC's having had 2010 on it before makes it suspect, right?
> 
> 

Try Office 2010 WITHOUT SP1

Phil

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9273

Per Phil:
>
>Try Office 2010 WITHOUT SP1

OK, then when I get Office 2003 installed on a virgin Win 7 system, I'll
uninstall everything but Access, then install Office 2010 except for
Access, but leave out the SP1 update.   

Hopefully Corporate IT has such an install.

2003 is a piece of cake: they have it out on a file server and I just
click a Setup.Exe.   But they have gotten really anal with 2010.  It's
got to be done by somebody on the Help Desk.
-- 
Pete Cresswell

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.ms-access

csiph-web