cakewalks installer for euphonix master control doesnt work with windows 7 x64

the installer for the euphonix master control  doesnt run on a 64 bit system?
um ya all they sell now is 64 bit operating systems fact is you are actually
pushing 64 bit compatibility hard and have been for years though its way too much hassle to try to run
anything in 64 bit still to this day
so why i ask, in an installer that has been updated mere days ago is there no 64 bit compatibility
and please for the love of god dont give me a sales pitch i own plenty of roland products have for years
ditched cubase for sonar cuz sonar is easy to use
but i am pretty upset that i own a euphonix master control and cakewalk uses an installer that is completely incompatible with the standard operating system that has been issued, with purchase of a computer for at least 18 months now
so what gives?
its a pretty simple thing to update your installer i mean after all you guys are a software company im just saying i am a long time roland, boss customer but this is an obvious and deliberate insult if you ask me
im not buying that you guys just forgot that every new computer you buy in this day and age has a 64 bit operating system
so my question is real simple why is your installer outdated
i just spent a ton of my hard earned money to put a system together that cakewalk says i can use with no hassles only to find out that the installer doesnt run on my os which is standard on any new computer purchased in the past what year and a half cmon guys dont treat your customers like that

Ah what installer from CW for your CS? Why does CW have an installer for it?

My post or the OP's? LOL

cakewalk put together an installer for the euphonix master control for windows 7. both companies are talking about the compatibility, yet the installer for the drivers and .dll files says right on the header that it only runs on a 32 bit system. now who owns windows 7  32 bit? unless you specifically pay for that operating system aside from the purchase of your new computer you get a 64 bit system standard period its not an option you get it and like it
its been that way since vistas what second year?
so while 2 companies are talking about being compatible, the installer the  software company put out does not run with what is a standard o.s. so i am curious as to why cakewalk who are the ones that put together the update and installer would do such a thing.
its not an over-site i am currently working on unpacking the installer and either modifying that little note they were nice enough to put in the installer that keeps it from being able to install on anything other than a 32 bit system, or remove the header so that the installer can run
my point is that  considering avid owns euphonix now which is pro tools its not surprising. i hate pro tools with a passion just like apple for that kind of money grubbing crap and am disappointed  to see roland i.e. cakewalk starting to pull the same type of stuff , v. 1.0.7 updated feb 15th 2011, 2 weeks ago was the last update on this program
the only reason the installer doesnt work is some joker threw a statement saying that it will only work on 32 bit systems making it so either a: you have to do a dual install to get the full benefits of the hardware
or b: use act to manually assign every single function from a generic surface
meanwhile both companies are speaking of being compatible
so i spent a grip of money picking up a high end piece of hardware both companies informed me were perfectly comppatible, only to find that the installer that would make them so is specifically designed not to work on the operating systems that are standard issue and that the same companies are making yet another big production about how they are compatible with and blah blah blah
the point is cakewalk needs to quit following in the footsteps of companies like apple and pro tools which used to be pinnacle. avid is actually making pro tools 9 open source so any 3rd party controller works on it which is why ill probably end up using it but it will be a cold ass day in hell before i ever ever let apple have any of my money because of their practices
i like roland and i like boss it upsets me to see them doing stuff like that to their customers its lame, i thought about the v series controllers but prefer the faster protocol of the euphonix and jazzmutant controllers sorry cakewalk but usb is lame firewire sucks,

http://www.cakewalk.com/s...eader.aspx?ID=20080104

I think you're at the wrong forum.  According to your posted url, that leads to the Sonar site, this installer is for Project5 2.5, Sonar 7, Sonar 8, and Sonar 8.5.

This is the Sonar X1 forum.

IF ... you're trying to run the installer on Sonar X1, according to the Cakewalk site you've posted, it's not supported.

If you "read" like you "write", then I think your problem may be a total lack of comprehension skills ...

... never-the-less ...

Best of luck!

sorry your having trouble, but really honest cakewalk has bigger fish to fry. errrr bake.. than the Euphonix controller.
they baked a @#$cake with X1 (their Flagship product) and they need to fix that.

on  another note. i'm thinking of getting my cakeboi tat removed.

You need to contact Cakewalk and see what they can do for you. This forum is not tech support.

and yes ive contacted them, but this is about tech problems one is having yes?
ive read quite a few entries in the forumes cakewalk eventually responds to them and id like them to notice though of course they are a corporation so nothing will be done about it i am sure thats how they work
still i like my voice to be heard because someone needs to say something
anyway im off to repack the installer and see if i was able to fix the problem, the euphonix controller is actually pretty bad ass and i like sonar so ill be pretty bummed if i have to ditch it for pro tools i hate that program almost as much as i hate cubase 5, but cubase 5 takes the cake for the most uselessly technical program ive ever had to work with holy crap that program sucks.

ha ha ya i notice its usually like that with new programs x1 is pretty cool really but its got its problems
way better than cubase 5 though i was trying that one out for awhile cuz everyone raves about cubase. only too happy to go back to sonar its pretty easy to use and tends to interfere a little less with the work flow
session drummer is pretty weak though so definitely have to throw some 3rd party plug ins in anyway ya im just hacking the installer so it works properly seems like the best solution, im not really a wait around for someone else to fix my problems type.
really youre probably right cakewalk will probably chime in at some point but they have their hands full and i think it was a 3rd party developer who did the installer anyway
but had to say something and ya im ranting, ive been working for hours to get all my equipment to communicate and its a drag
i havent even cracked the box to my gr-55 yet ha ha we wont even talk about how roland doesnt offer any really good methods of attaching that damned pick up had to design a pickup mounting bracket for my guitar that will allow me to put it in between my bridge pickup and my tremelo which means i had to move the pickup 1/8 of an inch so that it would give enough space for the synth  pick-up, and still leave a 16th of an inch between the trem and the synth  pick-up which should be enough to allow the trem to move and still get a strong signal to the pick-up.
tape, now i ask you, how long is a taped pick-up going to stick to your guitar, right at the bridge, with part of it sticking out further than your actual bridge or pick-up mount? forget palm muting
ha ha but thats a whole different forum all together and a question i will ask anyway rock on man

  the obligation is if you are going to do something, do it right or dont do it at all. cakewalk has long been a strong supporter of 3rd party hardware and it is very largely in their favor, but boss, roland and cakewalk are changing and not for the better that way. look at some of the shameless attempts to sell the v series hardware in various places in the forum where people are talking about the hardware problems they are having. one of the greatest things i and many other musicians i know love about cakewalk  is that you could just plug your hardware into a cakewalk product and start jamming, no fuss, no muss didnt even have to read the instructions it was that easy.
  thats even where the name for their company back before it became yet another whore for  corporate america so easy its a cakewalk. so strong 3rd party support is something that many have come to love and very much expect from this company,
honestly i dont know why cakewalk had to write the software rather than avid, thats really not my problem i really dont care who wrote it i just want them to eventually read that its flawed.

im still working on the manual install hopefully i can get that to work and then i can post how to fix the problem :)

I own a Roland Studio Pro Package II. I bought that for 2800 euro. And it now won't work in 64bit. I can however install Sonar 7 in 32bit mode and then I CAN use the SI.dll and install that on W7-64. And then I CAN use the SI-24 as remote controller....

Maybe this will fix (for a part) your issue?

to the OP:

the following line which you quote

    "ArchitecturesAllowed=x86-64 "

Means it should operate in x86 or x64 OS i.e. 32 or 64 bit

ProjectM

FastBikerBoy


Am I missing something here? Why would cakewalk be responsible for writing drivers and the associated installer for another manufacturers hardware?

I can understand why they might do that for commercial/compatibility reasons but I don't get the obligation.

It's not a driver, it's a protocol - like the Mackie protocol so Sonar understands what the Mackie messages mean from the control surface. Cakwalk is responsible for making Sonar understand the Euphonix Control messages in the same way as with the Mackie. But it seems like they've forgotten it somehow when 64-bit came into fashion, so I understand the OP.

BTW, the drivers from Euphonix is now 64-bit so no problems there. It's just the EuCon protocol that needs fixing.

It's the same as with ReWire. Propellerhead has to fix it so everyone can use it


To the OP - good luck, hope it works out for ya!

Ah got it. I thought he was talking about installation of hardware.

The problem must be with the CS dll then if it doesn't work. Surely the only installation that is needed is copying the dll to the Shared surfaces folder? Doesn't take an installer for that does it? I have tried using a couple of CS dlls for my BCF kindly written by other users on here but they have been 32 bit, and I use x64. They install okay but then show enclosed in brackets () when selected in the Control surfaces dialogue, and don't work either obviously. I can imagine that must be very frustrating.

To the OP it might be an idea to make your post a little clearer. Hope you get it sorted.