Visual C++ 1.x

edited November 2020 in Product Comments

imageVisual C++ 1.x

Visual C++ is a greatly enhanced and re-branded version of Microsoft C/C++. The Visual C++ line is primarily aimed at Windows development on 386 CPUs. 5.0 and later were bundled as a part of Microsoft Visual Studio.

Read the full story here


  • Had a suggestion come in on IRC to rename this entry to "Microsoft Visual C++" instead of just "Visual C++". It would make it easier to find, since it would be grouped with the other Microsoft stuff.
  • edited November 2020
    The 32-bit C/C++ toolchain in Visual C++ 1.0 for NT can be run from DOS. Later versions cannot.
    The 16-bit C/C++ toolchain in Visual C++ 1.x can also be run from 64-bit Windows.
  • I downloaded the MS VC 1.5 on 12/31/21. Today I ran a McAfee full scan on my computer and got a "generic" detection on the file MSVC-1.5.iso. I ran a scan on the .7z file with no detection, extracted again and got same detection on .iso file again. I looked but could find no information on this malware on Any clue as to what this is?
  • Sounds like a false positive. Modern virus scanners are notorious for flagging legitimate development tools. The "heuristic" scans can change on a day to day basis, so even if something has been scanned before, as this one has, it can suddenly find itself falsely flagged. It also occasionally happens that virus scanners might find bits of harmless garbage in unused deleted/slack space of disk images.

    The CD image looks legit and has been here for quite a while without issue. If anyone spots a specific issue with it, please let us know.
  • FYI, I found the CD I burned from the .iso of 12/31/21 and ran a scan on it. It again detected "Generic" in the file \NT_SP1\i386\OS2.EX_.
    Maybe no different from before, but more specific. I ran McAfee Malware Cleaner on my PC and it found and deleted 1 file (EM.EXE) buried deep within the windows folder, and deleted 36 registry files. It didn't say what malware it was deleting, so I don't know if it had anything to do with the one detected earlier. However, there was only 1 detected in the full scan I did earlier, so that must've been it.
Sign In or Register to comment.