[sbrg]

LOL! If you use the debugg for compiling the it will ofc req .net, but if u will compile it as release it will not be needed..

No, you fucking idiot. That is completely fucking incorrect.

[affixiate]

P.S. You can statically link MSVCR90.dll in your program. Then you don't have a runtime requirement.

Use the power of /MT.

[Forrest101]

No, you fucking idiot. That is completely fucking incorrect.

are u fucking retarded? I tested to use the release and debugg file on my virtual box with win-xp sp2(clean no .net) the release file worked but not the debugg one.. it started working just after i installed .net on it

[affixiate]

are u fucking retarded? I tested to use the release and debugg file on my virtual box with win-xp sp2(clean no .net) the release file worked but not the debugg one.. it started working just after i installed .net on it

uh, he's right. I wouldn't go insulting him. It doesn't matter what you compile it as. The default is a dynamically linked application to the runtime.

You need to specify the flag /MT or /MTd for statically linking the MSVCR90 library. The default is /MD (release) and /MDd (debug).

[Irion]

I thought it was obvious ... But I guess that if you're pointing that out then it was needed ...

[sbrg]

uh, he's right. I wouldn't go insulting him. It doesn't matter what you compile it as. The default is a dynamically linked application to the runtime.

You need to specify the flag /MT or /MTd for statically linking the binary. The default is /MD (release) and /MDd (debug).

No, he is not. God, you people are so fucking stupid I am amazed you function.

The .NET framework IS NOT THE FUCKING RUNTIME. You need the runtime, or you can statically link it, BUT IT IS NOT THE RUNTIME. Read the original post, for fuck's sake, before I sell all my possessions so that I can hunt you all down and beat you to a pulp with blunt object.

[affixiate]

No, he is not. God, you people are so fucking stupid I am amazed you function.

The .NET framework IS NOT THE FUCKING RUNTIME. You need the runtime, or you can statically link it, BUT IT IS NOT THE RUNTIME. Read the original post, for fuck's sake, before I sell all my possessions so that I can hunt you all down and beat you to a pulp with blunt object.

I don't think you understood me correctly.

I was saying the person I quoted was incorrect and the person that he quoted was correct. It seems that multiple quotes are not automatically quoted on this MyBB forum software.

So, to be explicit, iVo1d is incorrect. sbrg is correct.

As I already mentioned it here: https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?ti...pid8108126

[sbrg]

I don't think you understood me correctly.

I was saying the person I quoted was incorrect and the person that he quoted was correct. It seems that multiple quotes are not automatically quoted on this MyBB forum software.

So, to be explicit, iVo1d is incorrect. sbrg is correct.

As I already mentioned it here: https://hackforums.net/showthread.php?ti...pid8108126

Oh, sorry about that. Carry on then.

[p@rdon]

However, microsoft still links to the old library, they don't want the newer thread safe libraries that they force on their customers.

at runtime, linking to the old .dll automatically redirects you to the latest one that is on the system. they are just doing it for compatibility reasons ;P

[IX3R0XI]

Thank god someone finally made a thread like this, HONESTLY. The BS that people that know nothing of what they're referring to infuriates me.

[tahayassen]

Who the hell said it required the .net framework? I've never heard that one before.

[Montage]

Who the hell said it required the .net framework? I've never heard that one before.

The hoard of people using VC++6 due to misinformation about 2010. It is a common misconception on this forum.

[IllBeBackSoon]

So, I like seeing topics like these. People can finally understand it properly...