Anyone else think that less frequent updates might be a good idea?

I am a big fan of the new rolling update model and have at least tried the early release candidate every month with the exception of 2017-02. I also believe Sonar to be at its peak, faster and more stable than any time in the 25+ years I have been using Cakewalk products . That said, with the official release running a bit late, I have realised how good it is to have a stable DAW without any uncertainty of a new update causing issues (I have run into a few show stoppers sInce the new model was released). I wonder whether the solution doesn't lie somewhere between the new and old models - maybe updates every two or three months? Obviously I can choose to do that now, but I can't help but think that Cakewalk must feel the pressure of a monthly release date that could perhaps be at the root of the occasional isues we have seen slipping through the cracks. Again, I understand you can always roll back, but I am not convinced that these  problems don't unduly damage Cakewalk's reputation to the wider DAW community.
 
I am not for one second denegrating all of the hard work the bakers do - I think they are brilliant. I just wonder whether the monthly major releases have created an unnecessary rod for their backs. I for one am more than happy to give them a bit more time!
 
Just wondered what others thought.
 
Peace:)

I guess its a double edged sword.
some that update and have issues would have to wait another 3-4 months for a fix.
I myself have been very pleased with the monthly updates. I cant honestly say I have yet to rollback because of a version that was less than satisfactory. Im know some have needed to because of keyboard shortcuts, synth rack personal preferences. exc. But I have been pleased with the monthly updates and hope they continue the way they are. this is only my opinion though. im sure others will agree, disagree.
 
EDIT: I respect your opinion though..and your idea of why. I also agree with you in many ways.
I just like the way the monthly updates remedy issues (that we used to wait months to be fixed).

Good point on the fixes Chuck. Yours could well be the opinion of most; I was really just thinking out loud after a couple of difficult updates followed by one awesomely good one. I guess not everyone's 'good ones' line up though!
 
RsMcguitar you are also right about jumping onto new releases - unfortunately for me they are like chocolate in the fridge. As a Sonar tragic resistance is futile:)

I think the advantages of getting quick fixes and having new features introduced in more 'bite-sized' chunks greatly outweighs any higher probability of having bugs introduced by the shorter development/test cycle, assuming that's even a reality. Frankly I'm not even convinced that the monthly releases are resulting in more - or more severe - issues for more users than the yearly release did. And it's a lot easier to identify which change caused which issue when there are fewer changes in each release, and adjust settings/workflows to avoid the problem or roll back if something's a real showstopper.

I understand why Cakewalk would aim for an update every month, given the subscription model, but I don't think they have to deliver on that.
 
I would much prefer it to be release when ready, rather than forcing it out the door, and I think this is why Cakewalk changed the naming scheme.
 
To me, 2017.02 just means the second release (update) offered in 2017, and in my mind is not tied to February specifically.
 

tenfoot

ArcRex
The hard thing for me as a user is to not jump at updates when they don't affect me.

I hear you ArcRex. I too suffer thus particular afliction. A little more self control may well be all I need:)

One of the things that makes the current monthly update schedule "work" is the fact that there's a forum here, where you can gauge the experience of those of have a lack of self control.  (We salute you!)  I really appreciate the canaries that go into the coal mine first.  It allows me to update only when something cool comes along that's safe.
 
The fact that monthly updates are available doesn't mean that the updates are required.

Hi. I like it the way it is now.
I haven't had any showstoppers since the new model was introduced, and eagerly await the next update every month. 
All the best.

Fabio Rubato
I'm for the current monthly update process as well and appreciate those who adopt early and trial it for feedback and possible further updates. 

+2 for the canaries!
 

bitflipper
I very much like the frequent updates.
 
What I don't like, though, is scheduled frequent updates. That puts pressure on the developers to get an update out within a predetermined timeframe that does not take into account the realities or difficulties with whatever changes are being made.

 
Ya I do feel like they should give themselves permission to skip a month or two when appropriate. I'd rather they don't spend time bringing an intermediate build to release quality and instead spend the time working on the next actual milestone they are hoping to hit.
 
I'm fine with how things have been going, Sonar has progressed nicely and releases seem to be very stable overall. I just think they shouldn't impose a self directed schedule of one a month. They aren't having problems with it or anything, I just don't think it is necessary and it may slow down hitting milestones a bit since intermediate builds have to be regularly prepped.

Thanks for the input everyone - lots of great points and it seems everyone is thrilled with  the monthly updates. l wonder if people outside of our community would perceive that upon visiting this forum after each months update though:)
 
Ampfixer and bitflipper (EDIT and Sycraft) have best pinned it down the for me. Obviously this decision lies entirely with Cakewalk. If they're happy I guess all is well! To be clear I am not expressing any personal disatisfaction. Loving Sonar:)  Just wondering aloud how people outside of our comminity perceive this process and whether the bakers feel pressured by the timed releases.
 
 

I'm ok with the monthly updates, but sometimes when I find an update that seems to be extra stable and bug free for my purposes I stay with it longer to test it and make sure it's as good as I think it is. Then when I do update and find the new update has a bug that bothers me, I can just revert my C drive back to an image file with the stable update.
 
So if you don't' care for the monthly updates, just skip ones when you feel like it. There's no obligation and isn't it true if we skip one we don't lose an features or anything if we update everything when we're ready? Am I correct?
 
I hope so, because I have skipped some. I had problems with Oct, Nov, and Dec updates and went from 9.2016 to 01.2017, which I’m still staying with for a while. Enjoying a pretty stable update after a long spell of not so good ones for my system.
 
The monthly updates do give us lots of flexibility to update or not to update and when we really are needing some bug fix, hopefully it won’t be a long wait.

Hi,
 
To be honest I believe that current model is great both for people who likes monthly updates and also 'surprisingly' for those about less rare updates.
 
Why? Because it is our choice. :) As BRuys wrote 'no guns' :)
 
If you don't want more frequent updates just you can follow 'what's new and what's fixed' notice and then decide if you are really interested in it or you prefer to wait. Anyway there is also rollback implemented so in case of troubles you can go to previous version. I used rollback few times and must say it worked and helped to fix what newer version made worse in my projects. Or even you could decide arbitrary just to update twice per year. It is up to you in fact not to Cakewalk ;)

As Craig mentioned in every model there will be bugs and fixes needed. And developers always will be very busy. It is not possible to make complicated program which is also connected to plenty of others (like plugins which are kind of external functions) to have bug-free. Not possible for human.