Doktor Avalanche
Look over there...

I apologize profusely for addressing a comment from the person who created this thread, while remaining totally within the OP's context.
 
Kylotan is critical and often negative, but he's far from dumb and I thought he would have an interest in a) why it's getting ever more difficult to create bug-free software, and b) why more frequent releases can help address that issue. It has certainly helped Apple, which is why what I said was totally relevant. Or maybe you'd prefer to wait a year for Apple to solve some pretty serious issues. Be my guest. I update the second Apple releases something, and the same with Cakewalk. The only difference is Cakewalk lets you roll back.

Doktor Avalanche
Look over there...

Anderton
 Or maybe you'd prefer to wait a year for Apple to solve some pretty serious issues. Be my guest. I update the second Apple releases something, and the same with Cakewalk. The only difference is Cakewalk lets you roll back.

 
As I've said before, again I have no issues with the monthly cycle (I have suggestions on now it can be improved to reduce regression issues), the only Apple I own is right now in my mouth. Or perhaps you were referring to him... Not sure. Where did Apple come from?

Reality check: Everything presented here is a fact except for the second to last sentence, which is an opinion.
 
Owners of X3 Producer could upgrade to Platinum for $149. They therefore obtained what would have been X4, but also, had the option to receive bug fixes, features, content, and enhancements for a year at no additional cost. Basically, they were getting X4 and what would have become X5 for $149. They also had a full year to evaluate the program, which would provide useful background information for making a decision on whether to renew or not at the end of a year.
 
Furthermore, unlike the previous model where bug fixes stopped at a certain point, bug fixes became a continuous, ongoing process.
 
With this system, users had more options than ever before:
 

• They didn't have to update from "X4" if they didn't want to.
• They could update every time there was a release.
• They could update when they felt like it, for example, when there was down time in the studio and they had time to learn the new features.
• They could do any combination of the above, including rolling back the program itself and individual elements.
• They could wait a year and download a year's worth of updates at one time.

 
Before anyone says "look over there," here's how the above relates to the OP. The concern is whether the subscription [sic] model with a monthly release schedule affects reliability negatively. Downloading a monthly update is optional, so if you feel that downloading monthly patches leads to less reliability, download them when you feel any bugs that affect your workflow have been fixed (and roll back if they haven't). Or download quarterly, or yearly, or when there's a lunar eclipse, or whatever. (Granted there is no option to download bug fixes a la carte, but that didn't exist under the old model either - when you applied a patch, you applied the entire patch. So there's no difference there in terms of "choosing" your stability.)
 
My opinion is that bugs are being fixed at a much faster rate than new bugs are cropping up, that unanticipated bugs caused by other fixes are being identified (the community is very helpful in that respect) and fixed much more rapidly, and I attribute this to the monthly release schedule.
 
I am willing to put up with a few errant bugs every month in return for a platform that I find through constant use is becoming increasingly more functional and stable with each release.

mettelus
This thread sort of embodies the shift in the forums for me... those motivated by self-gain, the sycophants, and the poor end user trying to make a valid point. I am not as shocked as some to see a reduction in the number of regular posters.
 
If someone voices an issue they often get badgered until they either give up or cave in. Something to bear in mind with this "strategy" is that those people are paying the "self-gainers" salaries. The true "power" lies in the poor end user's wallet, and when they go "silent" that is a very bad sign.

The OP presented an intelligent post and presented what I feel is a reasonable concern. As it turned out, IIRC at least one of the bugs was pre-existing and one had a simple workaround, but that does not invalidate the premise, which is legitimate. As I mentioned in my example involving Apple's track record with frequent updates, this concern indeed has validity.
 
In all my posts I have tried to describe how the process works so that people can understand the tradeoffs that are involved. This doesn't mean anyone has to agree that Cakewalk has made the right tradeoffs, nor have I implied that they should. But, I do feel that the more accurate data people have about a topic, the better they can evaluate whether the concerns they have are valid or not.
 
Note that the OP did not say "This whole thing sucks and I'm going to start using Samplitude." He presented concerns. If he knows how the process works behind the curtain, he's smart enough to decide for himself whether he thinks those concerns will become more valid or less valid in the future.
 
 

S

kitekrazy1

John
I hate to break it to you all but Sonar will always have bugs. This is between you and me only. Don't spread it around.

 That even happens with the "grass is always greener" DAWs and the ones that are proprietary or need proprietary hardware.
  Even DAWs that have released an update after 4 months will have some problems.
 
  The other side of the coin is with this membership model people want something new every month. People like new whether it works or not.
 
 I like what some developers like Image Line, Propeller Heads, and Ableton do is have public BETAs.  The membership model doesn't allow for this.  
 
 If one is having a problem maybe they could put more detail and see if we can reproduce it.
 
 

Cakewalk recently put out a call for beta testers. They obviously got the numbers they want because the ad (sticky post) has now been pulled. Know that's not like a public beta but like you said the current model may not lend itself to that.

Anderton
It was a different and much simpler world in terms of the permutations and combinations of computer systems, additional software loaded on to hard drives, sizes of projects, hardware options, operating systems, shift in focus of computers and the experience computer manufacturers want to deliver to consumers, etc.

I don't want to dwell on this point too much, but this is not true to the extent you may think it is. Yes, there are more options. On the other hand, there are standardised driver models like ASIO, WDM, WASAPI - compare that to the early days when you basically had to hard-code in support for each piece of hardware yourself. And inside the computer, hardware has actually homogenised rather than diversified (fairly standard instruction set, bus architecture, internal devices are PCI-E and external are USB (at least on Windows)), etc.
 

As Noel has noted, changes in the Microsoft OS itself are what exposed issues in loading older 32-bit programs with BitBridge. No way BitBridge could have anticipated what changes Microsoft was going to make five or more years into the future.

Sure, but to be fair, I'm not complaining about compatibility with 3rd party software. I appreciate that is awkward, and I've moved to native 64 bit plugins where possible.
 

This is why Cakewalk's decision to allow users to keep software and freeze their systems at whatever point they want was a brilliant, and I believe totally underappreciated, move because it recognizes that the computing environment is becoming more and more of a moving target.

I don't understand what decision you are referring to, because surely this is how retail software has worked forever - it doesn't change without you asking it to (apart from browsers and the like).

mettelus
This thread sort of embodies the shift in the forums for me... those motivated by self-gain, the sycophants, and the poor end user trying to make a valid point. I am not as shocked as some to see a reduction in the number of regular posters.
 
If someone voices an issue they often get badgered until they either give up or cave in. Something to bear in mind with this "strategy" is that those people are paying the "self-gainers" salaries. The true "power" lies in the poor end user's wallet, and when they go "silent" that is a very bad sign.

If you are referring to me as a self-gainer, first, Cakewalk does not pay my salary but yes, the future of this company matters to me because I know the staff and I know they are extremely dedicated. I suppose I take the slights and comments about their incompetence personally because I know how much they care about SONAR and their customers, and I feel the criticisms about Cakewalk not knowing what they're doing are totally unjustified.
 
I have always tried to be transparent and patient, to the point of spending an entire Sunday afternoon trying to shed some light on the monthly development process, as well as correct some false statements which persist and repeated and therefore, are assumed to be true. I feel that someone should point out if factual information is not being presented.
 
If you look over my posts 49/50/53/55/58/62/66/71/79/88, every one related to the OP or answered a specific question/commented on a specific issue that was brought up. None of them badgers anyone; they present what I feel are fact-based insights related to issues brought up in the original post, and didn't get at all personal.
 
At #92 I started getting frustrated after seeing so many comments like these:
 

• "Now it's like Ground Hog Day the cycle resets to new release and uncertainness every month" (no, you don't have to update)
• "if a damning bug is introduced in that last release, the user will be faced with paying for a bug fix or rolling back to the 'best known version'" (Noel already stated that showstopper bugs would have a grace period if someone didn't renew)
• "Having a fixed time for releases inevitably bears the risk of releasing the software before enough time was spent for stability testing" (I've already stated multiple times that releases aren't based around times, times are based around releases - basically Cakewalk says "we'll release what we have that's ready to go on this date" - numerous things have been postponed over the past several months, including the Drum Replacer, for precisely this reason)
• "The difference is that there was neither pressure to ship something new every month" (but there is always at least something that can be shipped every month, so really, there's no pressure to come up with something; so far, "something" already exists. I'm sure some month the only thing that will be finished is content and bug fixes, but then I'd bet some people will complain "We want features, not content"...you can't win)
• "Unfortunately, the new membership model essentially mandates a monthly update" (see previous. Maybe some people are confused because there's a pay-as-you go monthly option, but that doesn't pay for a month; this isn't a subscription. It's pay to own.)
• "Yup you decide which regression bugs you want to live with, it's a feature" (I think having the safety net of a rollback "just in case" is a feature, not something to be mocked...I wish iOS allowed for that)
• "As pointed out before by others, a bug introduced in the last month I payed for, may not be fixed without paying again, even if it is a show stopper" (not true, as Noel has made clear)
• "Stating that the initial release of X3 was also premature without doing enough testing is not really the best excuse for doing not enough testing now" (it wasn't an excuse, I was pointing out that longevity in development is not the determining factor for reliability - and even then, people thought X3 much more stable than X2, so they must have been doing something right)
• "The short-sighted nature of most corporate software houses" (with comments about "The problem is the bean counters" - at Cakewalk engineering drives development, marketing markets what has been developed)
• "Look over there..." (which completely missed the point of covering how the process played out with another software company as a point of reference)

 
I am trying to shed light on the discussion because I respect the validity of the OP's premise, but there have been numerous suppositions and misstatements that interfere with a clear understanding of the monthly process. My comments are such that they may cause more people NOT to update immediately, but wait for a release or two (or ten, whatever)...or they may case more people to update immediately. I don't know, but it doesn't matter because those are decisions the user has to make based on their particular needs and circumstances.
 
If my comments are not seen as a genuine attempt to provide insights that I think the community will find worthwhile, then obviously I am not communicating what I intend to communicate, so I'm respectfully bowing out.

Anderton

Doktor Avalanche
I don't think though the solution is to go back to X3 release cycle, the solution is to improve the exisiting monthly cycle to concentrate disruption in specific areas whilst improvements are made. And there's little doubt cakewalk's regression testing needs improvement looking at the recent and rather obvious drum map bug. All this is doable....

Yes, all it takes is resources. But if the negativity from people who claim that the software is "unuseable" (seriously?) keeps others from upgrading - despite all the extremely positive accolades from the many customers who are using the "unuseable" software - the resources won't be there.

 
Let's not be dismissive here - in the time between last night, when I hit the drum map problem, and today, when a random forum post gave me a workaround, Sonar was unusable for me. Sure, I could load it up, and I could create a new project. But I couldn't do any work on any of my existing projects, because the drums no longer played back. If a key feature is broken then the whole program is essentially broken for anybody who relies on that feature.
 

There was one person in the forums (sorry, I forget who) who didn't upgrade to Cambridge because he read all the "horror stories" but then someone (mudgel, maybe?) pointed out how easy it was to roll back. So he upgraded and didn't have any problems. But all that time, he didn't take advantage of the new features because others (who in many cases had system-specific bugs) scared him off.

And the flip side of that is that sometimes we're having to choose between features and usability instead of usability going up incrementally as we'd expect from increasingly mature software.
 

Look at the Drum Replacer. Several threads were started about how great it is. The threads that were started about problems have almost all been solved because the issues were trivial or pilot error. And there have been requests for additional features. Too bad you'll have to wait a year for them to be implemented...no, wait. It may only be a month or two. My bad.

I'm aware that I've made my position on this clear to you several times, but with all due respect to the work you and others have put in to the new features and content, it is worth almost nothing to me, personally. I have used literally none of the features or content on this page - http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Whats-New - and don't see that changing much in the future (maybe Mix Recall will come in handy in a couple of months, and I might use the Drum Replacer next year). What I want is stability (which we're getting, thanks devs), and feature reliability (which ebbs and flows like the tides). I don't mind new features - some of these will be useful to me one day - but I'd be more impressed if we got the Step Sequencer and Matrix View working well. Or if vertically selecting a bunch of clips didn't seem to randomly select other clips. Or little things like stopping the Piano Roll showing 6/8 on the grid as if it was 3/4.

Kylotan
Let's not be dismissive here - in the time between last night, when I hit the drum map problem, and today, when a random forum post gave me a workaround, Sonar was unusable for me. Sure, I could load it up, and I could create a new project. But I couldn't do any work on any of my existing projects, because the drums no longer played back. If a key feature is broken then the whole program is essentially broken for anybody who relies on that feature.

 
Fair enough, although wouldn't it have been possible to re-assign the outs? I don't know, I hardly ever use drum maps so I'm not aware of the limitations. The few times I've used them, they did what I wanted them to do.
 

kylotan

AndertonThere was one person in the forums (sorry, I forget who) who didn't upgrade to Cambridge because he read all the "horror stories" but then someone (mudgel, maybe?) pointed out how easy it was to roll back. So he upgraded and didn't have any problems. But all that time, he didn't take advantage of the new features because others (who in many cases had system-specific bugs) scared him off.

 
And the flip side of that is that sometimes we're having to choose between features and usability instead of usability going up incrementally as we'd expect from increasingly mature software.

 
Also true, but I'm pretty sure some people, if given a choice between VocalSync and Mix Recall or a particular bug fix for a feature they rarely use, would choose VocalSync and Mix Recall. Again, it's all about tradeoffs.
 

kylotan

AndertonLook at the Drum Replacer. Several threads were started about how great it is. The threads that were started about problems have almost all been solved because the issues were trivial or pilot error. And there have been requests for additional features. Too bad you'll have to wait a year for them to be implemented...no, wait. It may only be a month or two. My bad.

I'm aware that I've made my position on this clear to you several times, but with all due respect to the work you and others have put in to the new features and content, it is worth almost nothing to me, personally. I have used literally none of the features or content on this page - http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Whats-New - and don't see that changing much in the future (maybe Mix Recall will come in handy in a couple of months, and I might use the Drum Replacer next year). What I want is stability (which we're getting, thanks devs), and feature reliability (which ebbs and flows like the tides). I don't mind new features - some of these will be useful to me one day - but I'd be more impressed if we got the Step Sequencer and Matrix View working well. Or if vertically selecting a bunch of clips didn't seem to randomly select other clips. Or little things like stopping the Piano Roll showing 6/8 on the grid as if it was 3/4.

The unfortunately reality is regardless of what you, I, or anyone else prefers, both needs have to be satisfied. So Cakewalk is trying to strike a balance of bug fixes for existing users, coupled with new features to stay competitive and not only provide useful functions for existing users, but attract new users. Obviously if you don't play electric guitar, you'll never use the CA-X amps - yet those people who do play guitar find them valuable. VocalSync will never matter if you do only orchestral work with MIDI instruments...Mix Recall may seem pointless until you have to run off a bunch of different mixes quickly for a producer, or different remixes for the dance market - then it becomes sufficient reason to upgrade in itself. And so on.
 
Cakewalk prioritized bug fixes and stability between X3 and Platinum. For some users, this was exactly what they wanted and they were very glad to upgrade. For others, they didn't see enough shiny new features and didn't upgrade. Balance, tradeoffs...I don't have a solution, but I truly believe Cakewalk spends a lot of effort trying to achieve the right balance and tradeoffs for the greatest percentage of the user base, and as far as I can tell that's the only solution available to the company.

Kylotan
I don't ever recall a Cakewalk patch making things worse before the Platinum days. Not saying it didn't happen, but I never experienced it. Back then, it was clear that every update (between major versions) was entirely geared to fixing problems. Now, updates are partly about fixing problems, and partly about adding new things. I believe that lack of focus has been slightly detrimental so far, and I hope they find a way to solve that. I would like the monthly release cycle to continue; I'm just concerned that it is coming at a cost that is on the borderline of acceptability to me.

There were definitely cases where a patch made things worse prior to Platinum, but maybe you didn't experience them because you don't use loops or video a lot But I get your general point and won't quibble. However, the major version updates - which did add new features - definitely caused problems, which is why the patches were needed.
 
The difference is now the errors that accumulate during a major update show up sooner, because the individual elements of the update show up sooner. However, to be fair they also get fixed faster because there's not the deluge of bugs that are queued up with a major release, which can take months to process.
 
It's possible the issues you've had with the first releases are more about being unlucky than anything else, and my lack of issues is about being lucky because I'm not dependent on the same things. I push SONAR really hard in a variety of project types, but haven't had any showstoppers, and hardly even any hiccups (the worst so far was when I deleted a set of IRs and opened a project where REmatrix was looking for them, although the error message in some indecipherable character set was amusing in its own way).
 
We'll see what the future brings. I think Cakewalk has done a really good job given that the web site, the method of distribution, the store, the update model, and the distributing/marketing has changed completely in a year. We're four releases into the membership program and I suspect there will be continued progress in the next eight months, given that a lot of infrastructure is now in place and there's a cadence developing.  
 
Meanwhile, as I'm sure you know I appreciate your comments, and wish everyone else would dialog on at least the same level. You expressed concerns, and I've presented information which I think addresses those concerns. Obviously I can't provide definite answers because I can't time travel ahead to 2016 and find out how this played out...especially because the time machine update isn't slated until 2017.
 

Craig: Releasing "what is ready to go" is one thing for a plugin or completely new feature like the drum replacer, but it's something rather different for bug fixes or other core changes that may interfere with other features. And you can't deny that at least 2 things in the recent updates were released when they were not ready to go - namely the drum map and the control bar fixes. Both were much likely caused by fixing other problems for those features, and both were very easy to detect. For me, this looks like a lack of testing, and none of your arguments rebuts this. But you are right, only time will show if these were rare exceptions or if it is a side effect of the monthly release schedule.

Bristol_Jonesey: Go to the drum map manager and reassign the output for one note to the instrument it is already assigned to.

Come on now. That's rude, basically. Craig's been contributing to this forum, and championing Sonar in the print press and all over the web, since the year dot. Sure, he's got a closer interest in the thing professionally now, but what he says and how he says it hasn't changed at all.