Solved A new frontier in software-to-OS compatibility

I need to get something off my chest. I just wasted an hour of my life trying to figure out why a widely-used executable application for Windows runs on one of my computers, but absolutely refuses to run on another. In short, yep, it is another one of those million cases of missing libraries required by the app.

In this case, it is a file called "mscomctl.ocx" (and a mismatch with . I don't give a rat's ass what the name means, what controls it contains, what makes it reasonable to claim it has controls that are "common", and what the FUC|< the extension OCX could possibly stand for. All that it matters is that this app, and a sh17load of apps out there require it. All that it affects is the whole lineage of Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP, all of which don't include it, and hence the whole sh17load of apps will fail to run.

So I would ask Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer (a well-known idiot), Satya Nadella, and all the talented staff at Microsoft:

1) You've been pushing Visual Basic for years as an easy-to-learn programming language. Yes, the apps are easier to write in VB, but have you numb-skulls considered whether they would be easy to run? I mean, you're making developers generate executable files that do NOT EXECUTE.

2) Sure it makes sense to move common code to separate libraries so that they don't have to be duplicated in every executable. Have you morons however considered just the weeeee-bit possibility that not every user has knowledge about every possible DLL, OCX, ACM, SYS, VXD, EXE, and MSC file ever in existence, to figure out which one, or which sh17load, of the libraries the app depends on? Do we need so fuc|<ing many extensions for external libraries that do run-time linkage?

3) So when a user does run into the expected problem of missing libraries, do you print any helpful messages in the stub code of the offending EXE file, to tell the user what the fuc|< is wrong? Oh yes, you did; these apps written in VB will print out:
Component "MSCOMCTL.OCX" or one of its dependencies not correctly registered: a file is missing or invalid
I'll confess, my first instinct was to yell at the developer for being careless, for making an incomplete release, for leaving out necessary files. However as the years rolled on, and the number of apps having this problem piled, I finally dug in and figured it out: you morons have your VB compiler install that OCX file, such that the developer will never see this problem, and you don't tell either developer or user where and how exactly that file got installed... or not.

So here you go, congratulations, the world's most-used desktop OS has an official development kit generating applications that WILL NOT RUN on said OS.

4) So now that we know the problem is with a file called "MSCOMCTL.OCX" (and I take a leap of faith in assuming the problem is NOT with something that this OCX depends on, as threatened by the above error message), let's try to hunt it down. We search for "MSCOMCTL.OCX", and voila, you do have a page titled
"FIX: The Windows Common Controls Mscomctl.ocx or Comctl32.ocx may cause your application or the Visual Basic 6 IDE to unexpectedly quit, or you may receive a &amp;quot;Divide By Zero&amp;quot; error message - [896559]"
located at
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/896559
You mean you MS dudes already have a FIX for us clueless users? Hooray! I immediately downloaded
VisualBasic6-KB896559-v1-ENU.exe
and installed it.
Problem solved.
Re-run the app.
Uh oh, I still get the same error from the app.
And you know what? I did keep an eye on what got installed by "VisualBasic6-KB896559-v1-ENU.exe". It ran, it showed me a license that I HAD to agree to, it displayed a progress bar, and it reported that it finished executing.
Only problem is, the fuc|<ing "fix" did not fix sh17, it did NOT install "MSCOMCTL.OCX"!!!
You call this a "FIX"? Are you speaking "UK English" to my redneck self?

5) Now that we've determined, for the umpteenth time, that Microsoft's huge knowledge base is full of moo-poop, we have to resort to consulting with some third party web sites, and see what they have to say about the problem. Turns out a whole bunch of web sites have the right solution, and a link to download the missing "MSCOMCTL.OCX".

Now let's pause for a second, and look at the state of the world. We got viruses and trojan horses clamoring for entry up the sphincters of every dude and his dog sitting in front of a Wintel PC. If you got "Automatic updates" turned on you know how annoying it is to see the same message every boot-up: "Updates are ready." "Your computer may be vulnerable." "The software you are about to install has not been signed by Microsoft, and may contain viruses and other malware." YADDA YADDA YADDA.
And yet, because you morons at MS call the above useless update a "FIX" and fail to solve this problem, you force users to go to untrusted third-party websites, download unknown files, log on as administrator, say 8 hail Mary's, and install them files with no reasonable expectation of safety or security.

Microsoft does not want users' computers to be secure in any meaningful sense. When security breaches happen, they thrive in the chaos that ensues, they bask in the glory of having sold by the millions licenses of unfinished operating systems, they enjoy the opportunity to perpetuate the mess they created, BECAUSE CREATING INSIDIOUS PROBLEMS IS A PRE-REQUISITE TO SELLING POORLY IMPLEMENTED SOLUTIONS.