Anderton
 
I don't think anyone is expecting users to lower their expectations. .....
 
 
Either way, bugs are unavoidable. The question is would you rather have a few features (with a few bugs) happening frequently, or lots of features (and a proportionately larger number of bugs) happening infrequently. 
 

I think that is exactly what was implied here
We are constantly being told here on this forum that "bugs are unavoidable".
In fact you just asked us if we want a "few bugs" or a "larger number of bugs".
As consumers, we bought a product with advertized features. We "expected" those features to work as advertized.
Not all of the features worked properly for everyone. Those that it did not function properly for are told to expect some bugs. (ie. lower your expectations)
 
I'm not trying to argue with you Craig, I admire all of the work you do here. And I mean that sincerely. It's just you are not the only one repeatedly telling us to expect bugs when we just expect our software to work.

jatoth

Anderton
 
I don't think anyone is expecting users to lower their expectations. .....
 
 
Either way, bugs are unavoidable. The question is would you rather have a few features (with a few bugs) happening frequently, or lots of features (and a proportionately larger number of bugs) happening infrequently. 
 

I think that is exactly what was implied here
We are constantly being told here on this forum that "bugs are unavoidable".
In fact you just asked us if we want a "few bugs" or a "larger number of bugs".
As consumers, we bought a product with advertized features. We "expected" those features to work as advertized.

 
All I am asking for is REALISTIC expectations. Not low expectations.
 
Apple has $178,000,000,000 in cash on hand and believe me, they have plenty of hot shot software developers. But OS X Yosemite has bugs. Mavericks had bugs. The iPhone has bugs. When I go to update apps on my iPad, virtually every single app update references "various bug fixes." The last system updates from Apple itself to my iPhone and iPad referenced bug fixes. How many patches has Microsoft, another giant company, installed on your computer within the past year? Why has Microsoft dropped support for 8.0, insisting that users must upgrade to 8.1 to get further updates?
 
Go to any DAW forum and you will see complaint after complaint about bugs. Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools...it doesn't matter, you'll find plenty of posts about bugs (which like the posts here are sometimes real bugs, and sometimes imagined). Nor are DAWs the only software product category with complaints. Interface companies, virtual instrument companies, digital hardware effects...all software has bugs. Period.
 
Why would Cakewalk be immune from this truism? To hold a small company in Boston to a considerably higher standard than Apple, Microsoft, Steinberg, etc. etc. etc. is absurd.
 
But really, all of these are minor league bugs. Check out some real bugs: In 2014, automakers issued more than 550 recalls for more than 52 million vehicles, according to the Associated Press. GM alone issued at least 60 recalls in 2014, with my favorite being to advise owners of certain SUVs not to park in garages because the cars could catch fire by themselves when left unattended. These bugs won't just leave a control bar module over on the right when you exit. They can kill you or set your house on fire.
 
Some records have lousy mastering jobs. I can guarantee the record company will not give you a free updated version in a month--they'll charge you all over again for a "re-mastered" version. Doctors misdiagnose patients, which sometimes leads to death or amputating the wrong limb. Food is recalled from grocery shelves because sometimes it's poisonous, and sometimes because it has, well, bugs (and I don't mean errant lines of code).
 
Imperfection is a fact of life in every facet of life. What matters isn't whether or not people make mistakes, because EVERYONE makes mistakes. What matters is how mistakes are addressed. But even then, you can never please some people. When they get their bug fixes, they'll sniff "Well, the bugs shouldn't have been there in the first place."
 
I can't help but wonder if the people who complain about bugs in this and every other software forum are as equally intolerant of imperfection in their own lives.

mettelus
The point was simple and directed to the CCC. How many dissertations NOT on topic must be read before this is understood?

Initially, yes, the point was directed at the CCC and simple. To recap, the OP was about thinking all the tutorials had to be downloaded to get the new help files, and at least the CCC should be able to be paused to make the process easier.
 
However, a simple and direct solution was offered to the OP’s issue in post #3. To recap, by using online help, nothing needs a lengthy download or be paused, and you can access all the new help files. These days, online help files are a common way to distribute documentation, particularly when time is of the essence. And as scook pointed out, the PDF is updated only rarely.
 
Despite offering a solution to the original issue, which typically ends a thread, the thread then turned into a more general discussion of dissatisfaction with particular elements of the CCC. Then it eventually broadened into a discussion of bugs in general, and how some considered it inexcusable that the CCC should have bugs. Post #29 then went beyond the CCC with respect to bugs.
 
Having already addressed the OP’s issue in post #3 with what seemed like an appropriate solution, I started addressing the later posts. It is not uncommon for threads to broaden into other topics as they continue, particularly if a solution to the initial problem was presented early on.

My comments were not directed about the CCC either... It works OK for me I look forward to enhancements.

I was saying I can live with regression bugs if we get hotfixes later like this control panel issue. I expect new features to work as advertised a month later. Long term bugs will be fixed in priority I'm sure each month.

I can't live however with installers that plaster files over my hard drive willy nilly it's sloppy. It is REALISTIC to at least expect installers to install files to the correct locations as specified in the registry. I can't remember any other vendor having the same issue (maybe in the 90's).

To imply that it's not a big issue because most people install samples or plugins on their C drive by default is crazy. Most people who are serious about their DAW environment want their samples and other stuff on separate partitions for performance and file management... It's called best practice. And those that have done this don't want to go chasing around fixing issues that the installer couldn't be bothered to accommodate for. Those people need to be listened to and not be dismissed as rare use cases.

Well Doktor, as I said earlier, I agree but I limited my comment to the placement of instrument samples and programs. However since we're on the subject, I'm not a fan of the whole C:\Users\Appdata\Roaming\Not So Roaming\Common Files\Data You Thought You Knew Where It Was\Settings\ type of structure, either...particularly because the "standard" place to put things seems to change over time. The Mac used to be free of this kind of silliness, so I was pretty distressed when Apple OS X started having "user libraries" and such. Try finding where the files are for the desktop images sometime...argh.
 
Several years ago I created a Vstplugins folder in the Programs folder and installed all my plug-ins to that. It made life easier, but now VST3 plug-ins are handled differently. And registering DirectX plug-ins...the less said, the better.
 
I also think you shouldn't have to go into the registry to tell an instrument where to find its samples. There should be a preference that says "The samples are here." I also think samples and programs should live in the same place, because the samples take up a lot of space and the programs don't. Might as well have them all in one place so a backup catches them all.

mettelus
At least you have validated my point of initially offering a workaround as a "solution." Thank you for that.

 
Definition of "workaround" from Merriam-Webster:
 
"a plan or method to circumvent a problem (as in computer software) without eliminating it"
 
Definition of "solution" from Merriam-Webster:
 
"something that is used or done to deal with and end a problem : something that solves a problem"
 
The OP limited his comments to downloading the new help files. His problem was supposedly not having easy and fast access to new help files. Having online help available eliminates and ends the problem of not having easy access to new help files. Sure sounds like a solution to me.

As to whether the PDF should be a separately downloadable file, I've already stated in previous threads that I think it should be. But that wasn't what the OP was about. It was about accessing the newer help files, and at least according to the generally accepted definitions of the words, I provided a solution in post #3 and not a workaround.

Also you have to consider dual boot scenarios where you want data to be easy to access no matter what OS you are using. Mounting a windows OS partition in Linux so I can hunt around for data ain't the most efficient way of going about things..

I can assure you that CCC does not learn from previous installations. Even if the registry has been modified CCC will still make changes according to running the default installer for every individual program element. It will not respect registry changes either. I've had the biggest VST mess with installing Cambridge and all the CCC items that had become red lighted even though the items were previously installed through the CCC. Because we get notification through the release eZine, I won't use the CCC again until it has significantly matured.

The Cambridge "Patch" is simply the latest Sonar installer available in your SSO account. It's called Cambridge Update 2 and labelled as 21.2.0.21. If I didn't keep the files on my PC I don't know how to find the first installer and do it manually. I know I can rollback and choose which version there but if I had to start from scratch I guess I'd have to contact Cakewalk support for a download link.

Um... well, that sort of validates #2 "or worse, a rationalized excuse as to why users should lower their expectations."
Your explanation is truly your interpretation of the OP? Being able to recall content from posts so readily, yet applying assumption (to reach one's own ends) just as readily comes off "rather odd."
 
The reaction to the CCC by all parties (who should be) most intimately involved with "issues" led me to an off-the-cuff comment, which was (in essence), "This all stinks of an out-sourced piece of coding." The CCC came under fire early on (and met with workarounds/rationalizations since day one), which was also why I originally had planned not to redeem Platinum until June, yet now I see workaround/rationalization as the "norm."
 
I was wholeheartedly hoping that my "June deployment maturity" prediction would fall through, but you have successfully lowered my expectations. Congratulations, I guess.

That comment directly above is in the context of CCC.
 
Please don't get this categorised as a CCC issue, we all know it needs work.
 
CCC does install to the correct areas after you've installed Platinum and have your registry settings set correctly with the exception of the Dim Pro Installer, Rapture and Boost 11 in the latest update. The issue is NOT with CCC it is with the installers.
 

mudgel
Even if the registry has been modified CCC will still make changes according to running the default installer for every individual program element.

 
As far as the lights are concerned - yes they ignore the registry (for example Dim Pro and Rapture) and there's no real logic.
 
In regards to installation I don't see this at all in the latest update if the registry settings are set correctly apart from the 3 installers I mentioned. Might want to check them. If you see other areas I may have missed let us know in regards to this update.
 
In regards to Boost 11 they are clearly building it as part of Sonar package rather than stand alone hence the version numbers are incrementing as though it's a new release on every update - this is a developer error. And regardless it's resetting the registry path as though it's a brand new install every time, there is no upgrade logic.

mettelus
Your explanation is truly your interpretation of the OP? Being able to recall content from posts so readily, yet applying assumption (to reach one's own ends) just as readily comes off "rather odd."

I really don't understand why this is so complicated. OP wanted easy access to new help files. SONAR has built-in easy access to new help files, which apparently the OP didn't know. In post #3 I told him how to take advantage of this easy access by clicking on Help > What's New, and even included an illustration. That sure seemed like a solution to his problem. But if you don't think that qualifies as a solution, that's fine. I just disagree that using a program's built-in help system is a workaround for finding help.
 
After that posts my posts dealt with issues raised in subsequent posts. 

Doktor Avalanche
It's resetting the Boost 11 file path entry in the registry hive, rather than honoring it on every install, and the DLL version is incrementing upon each monthly release even though there is no code change.
 
This means boost11 is always being reinstalled as a new version on every release, and not even honoring the registry file path. That is two bugs from a developer perspective. It's probably the way they are building their solution in Visual Studio and dodgy upgrade logic.
 
If it's part of the core installation by design then it either needs to be separated from the core, or the core installation logic needs changing but that is an entirely separate matter to the behaviour.

Have you elucidated this in the Problem Reports forum, or PMed one of the Cakewalk folks about this? The odds are remote of them finding this at the end of a thread that was about not knowing how to find the new help files. I'm sure the kind of specific information you seem willing to provide would be helpful to Cakewalk.

Doktor Avalanche
I doubt it will come as any revelations to Cakewalk, they must have been well aware of it before the patch was even released. 

Maybe not, if it's something longstanding that's been hanging around version after version, and no one noticed previously because it happened only once a year. Again, I don't understand how code and installers work, but for all I know what's there currently is just the regular installer with extras to accommodate monthly payments etc.

Doktor Avalanche
I doubt it will come as any revelations to Cakewalk, they must have been well aware of it before the patch was even released. 

Anderton
Maybe not, if it's something longstanding that's been hanging around version after version, and no one noticed previously because it happened only once a year. Again, I don't understand how code and installers work, but for all I know what's there currently is just the regular installer with extras to accommodate monthly payments etc.

 
Already in problem report forums twice:
Music-Creator-7-Cant-See-Boost-11
CWBRN31812-CCC-installs-old-version-of-Boost
 
I still can't post links yet...