Windows Build 887 - MSCVP120.dll Missing


When I updated to build 887 today I am getting a popup error message to say that MSCVP120.dll is missing from the computer. This was not a message I have seen on any earlier releases up to Windows build 833.

I am on Windows 8.1 Pro and cannot see that specific file in my Windows/System or Windows/System32 directories but I see I have a wide range of Microsoft Visual C++ 2005, 2008 and 2010 Redistributable and Run time systems installed in the programs list. Presumably all installed by various systems and programs.

I tried uninstalling all the various Microsoft Visual C++ and installing the latest 2013 version after seeing a note on this on a Microsoft site… but no progress… I still get the MSCVP120.dll Missing message.


I had that also on win 8


Did you fix it in some way Judas?


well no i mentioned it on gitter, i think its part of a dependency they missed on the latest build, possibly try an older version
my main pc is win7 and it seems fine on that


Windows 883 works

The problem starts at Windows 884 and continues in 885, 886 and 887.

I.e. last build I could install and use on Window 8.1 was 883


Hi @Judas and @Ai_Austin , we are adding the dependency and an update will be out shortly.



Hey all, release 892 and above should install required redistributable if unavailable. Please download and test @Judas @Ai_Austin


Hi leo. Yes the latest builds (892 and 893) for Windows do install the Visual C++ 2013 redistributable. But I note that they seem to install the x86 version even when the x64 version is already installed on the system on both Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 - both of which are 64 bit systems and 64 bit OS.


Heya @Ai_Austin - as much as the OS is a 64 bit system, the interface program itself is not, so, having been compiled in 32 bits and thus linking to 32 bit DLLs, it needs the 32 bit version of the redistributable, and as much as the 64 may have been already installed, it wouldn’t be able to use it.

Hope that answers your question :wink:


Yes thanks @leo I see the reason for the two versions now.