Hi,I ran Dxdiag today, first time for a while, and came across this error:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/135427.jpgI note 3x system.dll files exist and these each appear to be part of the 3 versions of Microsoft.NET: http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/135428.jpgShould I be concerned? I tried reinstalling DirectX over itself but, of course, nothing happened and the installer's report merely suggested that all was well with the existing installed files.I should also say that the DirectX Diagnostics module reported no other problems. I ran dxdiag merely out of curiosity and, as stated, for no reason other than I had not run it for a while.I checked the content of the various DirectX 9.0c cab files, following the initial extraction and after trying to run dxsetup, and found no reference to system.dll (!?)Mike

The system.dll's you point to in the bottom shot are not necessarily the one directx is looking. I only have one system.dll and its 1.01.4322.2032. It seems your version of directx has other system.dll files which may be from earlier versions of directx.I recommend downloading the entire 35MB directx9.0c from Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&DisplayLang=en and install it.Hopefully, the entire install will delete any unnecessary or older files.W. Sieffert

Hi Mike,.NET? To gamers that's like the Avian Flu.I checked my (very) clean DirectX and found not a single system.dll. I agree that yours are probably part of the .NET installs you've made and have hooked into DirectX.If it ain't broke don't fix it.Cheers,Greg

Hi,Thanks. However, I note that my version of system.dll in the most recent installation of the .NET framework is 2.0.50727.42I may be wrong, but doesn't this suggest that I may be more up to date than you in this particular area?Also, doesn't the fact that Dxdiag expects 3 versions of system.dll suggest that may be to ensure backwards compatibility with the 3 versions of the .NET Framework?I've checked and I find that your version of system.dll (1.01.4322.2032) is the one present as part of my updated version of the .NET framework v1.1.4322 If we continue this logic, I'm now suspecting that either the first update of .NET made the system.dll in v1.0.3705 redundant or perhaps this was implemented by the latest install of .NET, viz. v2.0.50727Finally, I'm now wondering whether the 'fault' lies with dxdiag.exe since it may not have been updated with the above in mind.Would be interesting to have some input from anyone who, like me, has no particular beef with .NET and has routinely updated via Microsoft Update to the latest version. Perhaps they could run dxdiag.exe and tell us what they see with respect to the system.dll files.Cheers!Mike

Hi Greg,Can't understand this antagonism towards the Microsoft.NET Framework and I know you are not alone.Did a quick Google search and found this quote:"Computer game developers are constantly challenged to create feature-rich, fast games within shorter product release cycles. To help simplify game programming, Microsoft Corporation created the Microsoft

Hi Mike,After reading my response to your first post I realize my reply seemed a bit flippant, so perhaps I should elaborate on my feelings toward .NET.While I personally don't have a lot of use for it (I have difficulty programming the alarm on my bedstand clock) I can undertsnad it's usefullness with regard to software development. But I don't agree with ATI's use of it to make a simple registry tweaker. I'm one of the many that believe ATI's creation of CCC was not just a coincidence in time. CCC was born of ATI's association with XBox development. It's part of Microsoft's far reaching R&D program. While I don't have a problem with a mega-corporation using it's smaller "partners" to aid (and in this case, troubleshoot) in product development (many great ideas are born using such a business strategy), I can only shake my head at the complexity required to make that simple registry tweaker.Such a tool is not rocket science. Such a tool need only be lean and uncomplicated. Such a tool should not create much grief at all for it's users. But many CCC users have suffered much frustration with CCC. This last CAT's release is a perfect example. Many users of CCC had upgraded to .NET 2.0 yet ATI somehow managed to build the lastest iteration of CCC around an earlier version of .NET. While these things are to be expected to a certain extent in software development, I would prefer to experience such frustration on a prduct that will yield me something (anything!) of relevant value, not that simple registry tweaker. To me CCC is much like reinventing the wheel... it might be a nice exercise, but how does it really make the wheel any better?Finally, I hope you understood that this, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." was referring to the fact that while you certainly have something strange occurring you shouldn't worry if your system is still performing well. Doesn't seem to be a problem that you have multiple instances of the system.dll.Just out of curiosity, how many times have you installed .NET? Is it the three times that you have versions of that system.dll?Regards,Greg

Hi Greg,"Just out of curiosity, how many times have you installed .NET? Is it the three times that you have versions of that system.dll?"...as far as I recall, it must be 3 times plus a couple of hotfixes: the original, the update and then version 2, and all via Microsoft's Windows Update.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/135497.jpgAnd, from Add or Remove programs:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/135498.jpgAs you know I'm a devout Omega convert and have remained faithful for quite some time now. The CCC issue has never been a problem for me and, for the time being at least, I've grown fed up continually updating my graphics drivers (still using and very happy with Omega's 2.6.53) and wading through the interminable and often valueless posts concerning each driver update over at the DriverHeaven forum. I suppose I'm waiting for someone to convince me that any of the current updates have anything new and worthwhile to offer my trusty ATI Radeon Saphire 9800 Pro 128MB card. Also, I still like RadLinker and would not like to lose that functionality.Regards,Mike

"...still using and very happy with Omega's 2.6.53..."I've not seen much difference in this sim for quite a few versions of drivers. Like you I use only the Omega's (though I will confess to trying others' contributions from time to time), and the biggest difference I see lately is his inclusion of ATI Tray Tool. Still learning it but I'm growing to like it more and more. Very flexible and can do alot. Other than that the drivers themselves haven't wowed me (they're always great and I've yet to have any problems with them... just no earth-shattering performance or IQ gains).Cheers,Greg

"just no earth-shattering performance or IQ gains"...that's good to know. How do you improve upon perfection? ;)Great to speak to you again.Cheers,Mike :-beerchug