--well, now I'm so totally confused by the info and counter-info on this thread, I have no idea what to do.  Decision - I'll do nothing. - I guess?---

I'm not sure what the "counter-info" is of which you speak. The post before yours said, "You don't have to install the redistributables at all. If you avoid using the shared MSVCxxx.dll for runtime, and use linked in runtimes (/MT switch) you do not need the redistributables. So it's a choice you can make." But that comment was directed at the developers of SONAR. It a technical programming comment, saying that Cakewalk wouldn't even need to distribute these DLLs if they did something called "static linking".

Whether or not I agree with that recommendation for the SONAR developers, it remains that SONAR X1 does currently distribute the MSVC++ 2005 DLLs, and the version it distributes is one that Microsoft no longer supports and one that Microsoft says brings security issues to your computer. Furthermore, there exists a later version of this distributable that SONAR could be using, which does not have these issues and which doesn't put its DLL in incorrect folders. Is there anything in this paragraph that is disputed by anyone?

I believe Noel promised that he would look into using an updated redistributable.

garretwilson

I'm not sure what the "counter-info" is of which you speak. The post before yours said, "You don't have to install the redistributables at all. If you avoid using the shared MSVCxxx.dll for runtime, and use linked in runtimes (/MT switch) you do not need the redistributables. So it's a choice you can make." But that comment was directed at the developers of SONAR. It a technical programming comment, saying that Cakewalk wouldn't even need to distribute these DLLs if they did something called "static linking".

Whether or not I agree with that recommendation for the SONAR developers, it remains that SONAR X1 does currently distribute the MSVC++ 2005 DLLs, and the version it distributes is one that Microsoft no longer supports and one that Microsoft says brings security issues to your computer. Furthermore, there exists a later version of this distributable that SONAR could be using, which does not have these issues and which doesn't put its DLL in incorrect folders. Is there anything in this paragraph that is disputed by anyone?

Oo! Someone has used a compiler before! <Thumbs Up>

This is funny. Are we now actively looking for trivial things to complain about?

If you already have newer versions of these files, the installer will not overwrite them with older ones. You'd probably be surprised by how many applications you have that rely on older libraries, including some Windows components and utilities.

Garret, can you cite a specific C++ runtime bug that might affect SONAR users?

The first link in your initial post points to a problem with the installer copying msdia80.dll into the wrong location. This file is not a dependency of SONARPDR.EXE, so how is that relevant? The second link describes a security vulnerability in the Active Template library, which the CW devs probably do not use. Again, not relevant to SONAR. Maybe you think some bad guys will figure out how to use SONAR to execute rogue programs?

Granted, CW should make a point of keeping up-to-date with distributed third-party components. But this really is a molehill->mountain scenario.

This is funny. Are we now actively looking for trivial things to complain about?

If you already have newer versions of these files, the installer will not overwrite them with older ones. You'd probably be surprised by how many applications you have that rely on older libraries, including some Windows components and utilities.

Garret, can you cite a specific C++ runtime bug that might affect SONAR users?

The first link in your initial post points to a problem with the installer copying msdia80.dll into the wrong location. This file is not a dependency of SONARPDR.EXE, so how is that relevant? The second link describes a security vulnerability in the Active Template library, which the CW devs probably do not use. Again, not relevant to SONAR. Maybe you think some bad guys will figure out how to use SONAR to execute rogue programs?

Granted, CW should make a point of keeping up-to-date with distributed third-party components. But this really is a molehill->mountain scenario.

bitflipper, I don't want to promote an argument into a rathole. But you specifically asked me some questions, so let me respond.

I already pointed to a Microsoft security bulletin. You say that "the CW devs probably do not use" the ATL. What---are you guessing? And if you're guessing, why would you guess that they don't instead of that they do? You don't think they use COM objects or ActiveX components---isn't it possible that they are using the ATL? (If you've ever written COM objects by hand you'll be crying for the ATL.) Or one of their monstrous pile of libraries they are dependent on might use ATL?

But whether they use the ATL is missing the point. The whole point of a C++ runtime library is that it is installed globally and used by the whole system! The whole point of COM/ActiveX is that it provides UUIDs that identify components, and these components are registered globally for use by the whole system. Any other programs that use these COM/ActiveX interfaces automatically get these security vulnerabilities as well. So you know what? You could uninstall SONAR from your system, and if you leave the outdated MSVC++ runtime on your machine your other apps that use it are still vulnerable, even with SONAR gone. (Granted, most of my other apps are not still using the 2005 runtime.)

As Proteinshake indicated, what ticks me off is that I spend so much time getting my system in pristine working order with the latest patches, and some program I pay $199 for the day it comes off the presses has to go and litter my system with vulnerabilities---which the company knew about and should have fixed in 2007!

We all agree that Cakewalk should use the latest redistributable. Noel said he is looking into it. I'm going to try to leave it at that.

I completely agree with Funkybot.

Being that X1 is the "new" generation of Cakewalk's flagship product and that these plugins are obsolete (since Cakewalk can't be updated them anymore), then the most logical step, given the circumastances, would be to discontinue these plugins.  The people who'd want them can install these plugins from an older version of SONAR if they so choose to.  Cakewalk needs to realize there's a point where the company has to move forward and make these type of decisions.

How I solved the Runtime Error in X1 that was also affecting 8.5.3....System Restore ....to the day before I installed X1...I will wait til they get this mess together...I paid for X1...I'll just wait until its actually safe to use it!!!! I have clients to deal with and the buggy upgrade is not cool~~~at all~~~ When a system crashes every time you open it ..there is something seriously not right here!!!!

When a system crashes every time you open it ..there is something seriously not right here!!!!

I think you may have some other problems with your system.  I've got X1 working stable in my studio, and I've not yet had any crashes.

Nope...My system is running like a charm now that I've done a system restore....Sonar 8.5.3 is running quite well now that X1 is on the back burner for now! No issues with crashes...no C++ crap...and Noel...read back what you wrote..Seriously dude..if this DAW was really ready..and you guys did some coordinating with Microsoft off the top...you would never have had to type that mountain out of a molehill stuff. Look..here's an interesting solution. How about utilizing the same MSVC++ that you used in Sonar 8.5.3  in X1 by eliminating the 2005 version from the download all together? Trust me..it's worth a shot instead of trying to cover up for the guys that pay you. Ya Think?

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]


...this thread is just unnecessarily causing undue confusion for everyone.

Noel, couldn't this thread just be quietly put out of its misery?  It's totally confusing and I think bogus.  A company has the right to delete posts on its own Forums when a thread is found to be pointless.

Randy B.