I guess this points up something about all the stuff we hear about "the consensus is" on here; even the people who think they are agreeing with each other often aren't, when you get down to the specifics.

Bub

John T


It's also an entirely unrealistic expectation for a software product.

I just don't agree with that. I've said it before, when you purchase something, it should work the way it says it will. If it doesn't ... fix it at no charge. Saying, "that's just how software is" is no excuse. It's not the software, it's the people writing it.

Can you think of an entirely bug-free piece of software? I can't.

Again, you're moving the goalposts. "Should have been fixed by now" is an argument you could make, but it's not the same as "Should work first time and never have a single bug in the first place", which is the argument you did make.

John T


Again, you're moving the goalposts. "Should have been fixed by now" is an argument you could make, but it's not the same as "Should work first time and never have a single bug in the first place", which is the argument you did make.

You're hilarious John.  If you can't comprehend that we just want these simple annoyances fixed then I'm not sure what will make you understand.  It's probably time for you to bail on this thread and go use your software since you love it so much.

dontletmedrown

John T


Again, you're moving the goalposts. "Should have been fixed by now" is an argument you could make, but it's not the same as "Should work first time and never have a single bug in the first place", which is the argument you did make.

You're hilarious John.  If you can't comprehend that we just want these simple annoyances fixed then I'm not sure what will make you understand.  It's probably time for you to bail on this thread and go use your software since you love it so much.

You're now just ducking the point. Can you think of a single software product ever which came out totally bug free on day one?

John T

Bub

John T


It's also an entirely unrealistic expectation for a software product.

I just don't agree with that. I've said it before, when you purchase something, it should work the way it says it will. If it doesn't ... fix it at no charge. Saying, "that's just how software is" is no excuse. It's not the software, it's the people writing it.

Can you think of an entirely bug-free piece of software? I can't.

Sure, there's lots of bug free software. I gave you a list of a few off the top of my head the other day in a different thread. I'm not going to rehash this.

Reality is ... if a company sells a product that says it will do x, y, z and it does not do x, y, z like they said it would, then they need to fix it and make it right and no charge.

John T


You're now just ducking the point. Can you think of a single software product ever which came out totally bug free on day one?

I'm not ducking anything.  I've been using computers/software for about 20 years and I would go so far to say that 99% of the software I've ever owned is relatively bug free, or if there are bugs, for whatever reason they don't affect me or my setup. 
 
Then again, I don't know if there is ANY software that I've put in the kind of man-hours that I have with Sonar and Pro Tools.  I don't consider Sonar "buggy", it just has LOTS of annoyances and the "delete hole bug" is pretty much the only one that has been a deal-breaker in front of customers.  It has been around since Sonar 6 at least.  Maybe they just need more time?!?!

John T

eratu

Heck, I'd happily pay more just for the better video support and ripple editing... but there may not be enough of us to warrant the expenditure of resources on Cake's end. Although, I do hope so.

Well... Video support is only relevant so some people, though I'd imagine quite a lot, but Ripple Editing strikes me as something that pretty much anyone could get good use out of.

When I look at Sonar from a totally neutral perspective, putting aside all the things I personally would love to see happen with it, I do agree that more people would get more *immediate* mileage out of good Ripple Editing than, say, video features. It's applicable to many workflow situations and projects. Once you have good ripple editing, a huge number of Sonar users would use it quite frequently, and frankly, life is better with good ripple editing. :) So I can't disagree on that point.

However, video features are still so important these days, even to many people who don't realize it yet. What happens when new users get that first h.264 23.976 file and think all will be well and try doing something with it? Most of the video content I get now is like that. In that one moment they'll hit a brick wall, and then it will be about workarounds. Even with workarounds, technically, you can't take a 23.976 project and turn it around with frame-accurate hits, for example. 23.976 is one of the major standard frame rates now. How can any DAW that says it works for video/film *not* support it? I realize it's not as simple as that, and I don't pretend to know the inner complexities of Sonar's current video engine, but surely, this is an important issue.

And I don't mean to keep pounding at it... I'm guessing I'm in the minority on this one and, well, I can handle that reality. But look at it this way: most (perhaps all, I haven't verified) of the major competitors to Sonar already support it and some have much more advanced video/film features... if we're waiting around for X2 or X3 or heaven forbid, X4, for it, how many video/film people will simply not take Sonar seriously? What's the value in the equation for lost opportunity? Just a thought.

In that context, in one way of thinking, those video features may become even more pressing than ripple editing.

So yes, by sheer, broad practicality between the two features, ripple editing would benefit a larger portion of Sonar users out of the gate.

But by sheer necessity, the video limitation will affect a growing (and admittedly unknown) number of people.

Just another two bits. I understand the resource issues and the balancing act that is the developer's ever-present nightmare. I'm sure Noel would want to give us all the features we're asking for if the resources permitted.

John T

Again, that's moving the goalposts. What you said is that it should just be right first time. If you're now agreeing that in reality things aren't that black and white, then fine.

 
Sorry John, not sure what else I can give you.  You seem more interested in arguing sematics.  Correcting your mis-interpretations is getting tiresome for me.  I'm afraid I'll have to ignore the rest of your posts unless you can offer some substance regarding the specific issues I mentioned in post #154.

As to your issues in 154, sure, those things should get fixed. Though I think it's a stretch to call the new track folder behaviour a bug; it's more just a behaviour that you don't like.

John T


It's not remotely semantics. You said specifically that it should bug free first time and not need updating.

Sorry, we're done here.  I don't enjoy chatting with you.  Might wanna put your thinking cap on if you're going to talk shop with grown folks.
 

And now for something completely different.

I have read this thread with a great deal of interest for I knew that Eratu would write a great review. One we can all take to the bank.

I don't as yet have X1. I will as soon as I am able. Which should be soon.

I have been carefully reading many of the threads on this forum about X1. At first I was put off greatly by what CW had done with Sonar. I even thought Sonar was not updated and CW had brought out a new line entirety and putting off updating Sonar. After all X1 looks a lot like Home Studio XL to me. Then after being disapointed I began to look at it a little closer and well maybe I had missed something. Sure enough I had. It is a very different program, one that will require me to relearn it. As it stands now on looks alone I am not very happy with the new look. But I am willing to not care so much about that as what it will offer me in workflow. So far reading these threads I have come to some conclusions about X1.

I think Eratu has done a great job of explaining X1's pros and cons in a way I feel confident that I will learn to like it.

Like many of you I have a way of working with Sonar that has been carefully tweaked throughout the years.  I have my system setup for Sonar after years of trying different things that either worked well or did not. Now I see I may need to reevaluate my whole system and how I function with Sonar X1.  I am not looking forward to that process. I don't know what I am going to give up or what I am going to have to change in order to be X1 compliant.

Yet I do see this as a beginning of a new era of DAWdom for me. I see strong possibilities in the new Sonar that intrigue me.  I do see some very poor  conceptual decisions for example the new CV and the lack of adding all MIDI controls to a CV MIDI track strip. A golden opportunity that I see no reason for CW not to have thought about that as a needed change.

Again I do see X1 as a strong DAW that may turn out to be far better then it appears now.   I do remember back when Sonar first appear and we lost some important things from Pro Audio. At first I was unimpressed by Sonar. Then as the years past and things got much better I learned to consider Sonar the best sequencer around for general use.  It has, up till now, been a very innovative and powerful DAW. I still miss many of the things that Pro Audio had and Sonar never implemented such as direct audio editing and the pencil tool not to mention Studioware and CAL programing.  Yet what Sonar offered to me was far more then just those things. Now I feel I am in a sort of same boat as I was back then.  I was right in sticking with Sonar and I believe sticking with X1 will prove just as fruitful.  

I want to end by thanking Eratu for this thread that is so well written. 
Lets keep this about X1 and not about each other.   

John


And now for something completely different.

I have read this thread with a great deal of interest for I knew that Eratu would write a great review. One we can all take to the bank.

I don't as yet have X1. I will as soon as I am able. Which should be soon.

I have been carefully reading many of the threads on this forum about X1. At first I was put off greatly by what CW had done with Sonar. I even thought Sonar was not updated and CW had brought out a new line entirety and putting off updating Sonar. After all X1 looks a lot like Home Studio XL to me. Then after being disapointed I began to look at it a little closer and well maybe I had missed something. Sure enough I had. It is a very different program, one that will require me to relearn it. As it stands now on looks alone I am not very happy with the new look. But I am willing to not care so much about that as what it will offer me in workflow. So far reading these threads I have come to some conclusions about X1.

I think Eratu has done a great job of explaining X1's pros and cons in a way I feel confident that I will learn to like it.

Like many of you I have a way of working with Sonar that has been carefully tweaked throughout the years.  I have my system setup for Sonar after years of trying different things that either worked well or did not. Now I see I may need to reevaluate my whole system and how I function with Sonar X1.  I am not looking forward to that process. I don't know what I am going to give up or what I am going to have to change in order to be X1 compliant.

Yet I do see this as a beginning of a new era of DAWdom for me. I see strong possibilities in the new Sonar that intrigue me.  I do see some very poor  conceptual decisions for example the new CV and the lack of adding all MIDI controls to a CV MIDI track strip. A golden opportunity that I see no reason for CW not to have thought about that as a needed change.

Again I do see X1 as a strong DAW that may turn out to be far better then it appears now.   I do remember back when Sonar first appear and we lost some important things from Pro Audio. At first I was unimpressed by Sonar. Then as the years past and things got much better I learned to consider Sonar the best sequencer around for general use.  It has, up till now, been a very innovative and powerful DAW. I still miss many of the things that Pro Audio had and Sonar never implemented such as direct audio editing and the pencil tool not to mention Studioware and CAL programing.  Yet what Sonar offered to me was far more then just those things. Now I feel I am in a sort of same boat as I was back then.  I was right in sticking with Sonar and I believe sticking with X1 will prove just as fruitful.  

I want to end by thanking Eratu for this thread that is so well written. 
Lets keep this about X1 and not about each other.   

The more I use it the more I like it, and I'm having plenty of those moments where I'm trying to do something that I do/did all the time in previous versions and find I can't. After some frustration and usually pressing F1 for a quick read I suddenly 'get it' and it's usually an improvement over what went before.

IMHO if you approach it as a new piece of software that's a bit like Sonar 8.5 you'll find it an easier learning process than expecting it to be a straight forward Sonar 8.5 upgrade.

Just my 2p worth........

dontletmedrown

John T


It's not remotely semantics. You said specifically that it should bug free first time and not need updating.

Sorry, we're done here.  I don't enjoy chatting with you.  Might wanna put your thinking cap on if you're going to talk shop with grown folks.
 

Well, nice try, but you're plainly just brick-walling because you've run out of answers. You said what you said, anyone reading back up the thread can see so for themselves.

Damn.