This issue has been confirmed and fixed.

Yeah, I'm excited. The bug tracker seems to be working out pretty well so far. Of course, the real test is the test of time.

I will get a patch file posted this weekend.   I have considered posting the fix as a linked file on the bugtracker when issues are resolved, as there is a way to attach upload files to issues but the concern is, as time goes on, people will download those fixes when they are not updated to the correct version, or they will load an old "fix" that predates a current update or something like that.  Mixing programs between different versions can cause problems and this would make it extremely easy to do.  Feedback, please.

It's worth noting, however, that the istech status page has links to updated programs and there is no protection from someone downloading those files and installing incompatible copies on their system. It's still a bit safer than posting program fixes on the bug tracker itself.
 
Ideally, and this is a totally hypothetical scenario, it would be best if there were some sort of updating agent which had access to the most recent version of every program and could "auto update" a Classic or Evo installation to the newest version. Of course, this is really easy so long as the only change is downloading a newer copy of a program executable (be it a .RWN, .RUN, or .EXE). Sometimes the database has to be upgraded and that would throw a bit of a complication into things. It should still be doable. Of course, such an auto updater would need to be authenticated so that only registered, paying customers could use it. Still, I think this could be a decent idea as it would help to ensure that the maximum # of people are up to date. However, a potential snag is that currently people sometimes keep away from the bleeding edge updates because they are afraid that something may have gotten broken. As such, an auto update system really only works if you trust that the newer version really is better than the one you already have.

Hopefully I can say this strongly without sounding like a jerk...
 
We are not "typical" software users out here. This is an enterprise software system and most of the users here should either be IT or multi-hat people who realize that they are working with an important piece of backend software. We should be able to handle the task of reading the updates page carefully and understanding what we should be installing or patching based on that. I for one do not want to use any kind of auto updater. I want to decide what to update and when so that I can assess risk vs. benefit. A big part of what I watch on the forum is what problems crop up and what features change in updates so that I can assess my own company's readiness to adopt patches and updates.
 
Now, if you do think I'm a jerk, don't worry, you're in good company  

Believe me... I, for one, would be a really hard person to truly offend. Just look at some of my posts on this forum even... I'm quite blunt a good bit of the time.
 
I see your points about an auto updater. I think that I even mentioned some good reasons why the use of an auto updater could be problematic. Of course most people here should be pretty knowledgeable but I'm not sure if every company that uses Evo or Classic has a technical person. If the world were perfect then the ability to auto update (or, like windows update, pick which updates you want) would be helpful. The biggest problem is that some updates break stuff that used to work or otherwise cause havok in the system or change the way things work. This makes it imperative to fully understand what an update will do before you apply it. It's nice to hold back a while and watch the weeping and gnashing of teeth instead of leaping into the fire yourself.