Have installer, but now hesitating to upgrade from C4


Because of the anounced price increase, I’ve bought the update from C4 to C6 a bit prematurely - might not have been a good idea, though. I don’t intend to start using C6 yet, but was thinking I might try using C5 - but having second thoughts now.

Some time ago, I downloaded the (demo) installation file for the final version of C5. My understanding is that, with a full C6 license on the dongle, this won’t run as a timed-out demo, but continue to operate, and be pretty much the same as having installed from C5 disks.

But, having now thought through this better than I did before I made the purchase :unamused: , I’ve become a bit concerned in case I might harm the PC’s performance in any way - eg making C4/SX3 or even other software run less well. The PC is getting old, but - puny though it may be compared with the newest PCs - it does all I want for now and the forseeable future, so I wouldn’t want to degrade its performance noticeably.

Hence a few questions …


  1. To use C5 (under the C6 license), will I need the version of the e-licenser software that I’d need if I were actually running C6?

  2. I’ve read that, for running C6 under WXP, you need .netframework 3.5 + sp1. So must I have that installed for running C5 under a C6 license?

  3. I get licenses on to the dongle by using my internet PC, which currently, has Syncrosoft License Control Center v installed (but not Cubase). Will that version be sufficient to download a C6 license? If not, will the required version need .netframework 3.5 + sp1 installed on the internet PC?

  4. When running audio software or other software, does .netframework 3.5 + sp1 slow down the PC (appreciably) or demand extra resources?

  1. You’ll need a version of elicenser that recognises C6. Can’t see that being an issue (aside from any .NET issues).

  2. Yes, you need .NET 3.5 for C6 under XP. And possibly the same for C5 on C6 license as above.

  3. No idea. Can’t see what the issue is with your internet PC?

  4. Not that I know of. But I’ve not done any testing as such, as it meant C6 wouldn’t work.

I’ve had no problems running C6 on a couple of clients’ XP machines. TBH I think you’re being OTT, but if you’re worried, why not make an image of your system drive, then do the installs and if you don’t like it you can go back. Easy enough and free if you use something like reflect.

In relation to that, this post looks encouraging:


So it seems that, although I’ll need an appropriate version of netframe on my internet PC in order to update the elicenser, the PC currently running SX3/C4 will “see” the new license properly and also be able to run SX3/C4/C5/C6 without having netframe installed on it.

Can anyone confirm that?

Just to add that putting .net 3.5 sp1 on my xp machine made no difference to the way it ran Cubase.

Probably not, since the old LCC-software will / might not recognize your new C6 license without updating the database and therefore the e-licenser software.

If using C4 on a fairly old computer under WinSX I’d NOT recommend upgrade to C6.
Better to budget yourself a new system and C6 first for a quiet life mostly off the forum. Making music.

What’s that? A secret version of Windows optimized for Cubase? :stuck_out_tongue:


And I’m happy to carry on with C4 or SX3 for some time, given that a lot of what I want to get done will still be doable on the old PC, as is. So I don’t want to do anything to the PC that might risk harming its performance with C4/SX3. Apart from being puny by modern standards, and hence rather restrictive in the use of big sample libraries, etc, it’s very suitable for what I currently want to do, and very comfortable and familiar in use.

(As said in my first post), I only bought the upgrade when I did because SB said the price would be going up. If necessary, I’ll ignore it til I get another PC. And (as always) the longer I can put off upgrading, the more I’ll get for the money when it happens.

It’s just that if Keres is right (meaning I really could run C6 on the PC without having to install netframe), I might as well give it a try.

Well, yes, that’s the concern. And if there was any chance at all that installing netframe (so as to make the new elicenser software work) could worsen the PC’s performance, I’d best not do it.

For reasons I don’t understand, System Restore doesn’t seem to be wholly reliable on this PC. And in the past, on other PCs, undoing a change by using disc imaging software to restore the state of the C drive hasn’t always gone smoothly - eg software (Soundforge?) saying it’s not properly installed, and other things (Native Instruments?) requiring re-authorising.

Once, the disk image even turned out to be unusable when I needed it - something that couldn’t be discovered without having tried to use it. Ever since then, I prefer not to rely on disk images unless I can test them before going ahead with changing the C drive. And I can’t do that on this PC - it’s multi-boot, with no spare primary partitions available for testing. I’ve kind-of painted myself into a corner, as far as that’s concerned.

Thanks, everyone, for the advice.

But … still … if it were possible for someone to 100% confirm Keres’s experience, that C6 can be run on WXP without installing netframe, and that it isn’t just some quirky thing that made it work for Keres (and anyone else), then I could go ahead an update the license.

My my! I’ll go dye my hair blond. :mrgreen: XP of course. ADS = Acronym Deficit Syndrome. I’m taking tablets for it.

.NET framework is a bunch of dlls used by components written to use them. It’s not like a service that runs in the background eating up CPU resources. There are different versions of the .NET framework, that are maintained separately from each other, so there should be no conflicts between versions 1, 2, 3, etc.

Mostly on a music computer, those binaries will just be sitting there taking up space until they are needed and instantiated, a lot like many of the dlls in system32 folder.

In these ways, it’s a bit like Java, which has its own binaries and is instantiated by applications when necessary. Java does run its own updater, which can be an annoying pain in the asterisk, but it doesn’t generally cause any performance problems outside itself. (I know a lot less about Java than I do about .NET, so could be a bit off here)

.NET updates come along with other Windows updates. Same source anyway.