Yeah best not to shoot of at the hips

Computer programming can be easy as bitflipper says but the part that is harder is when you try to make that system think. ohhhh lol there is the problem...I used to fault find when programming and that could take me hours. Time really goes by quickyl by the time you find the if and the goto's then when you break it down its not even that line at all that was causing the problem but something obscure.

Every profession will have its complexities, decisions they need to make, inspections carried out every 6 months. repairs needed to be made. The thing is if something is not caught in time it could cost a company billions. So with small companies its best to remedy the problems as soon as they occur which will benefit them in the long run.

I hope this is what CW is now embarking on!

At this point, I don't think I want the X1 programmers anywhere near my 8.5.3 install.

Bitflipper, I feel the pain and agree with you 100%. If, in the course of development CW fixes DLL files used in 8.5 and puts them in X1 then they should be posted for 8.5 users.
When I build amps the availability of parts is continually changing. If I find a new part that really improves reliability or function then I install those parts on any amp that's in for service and offer it to other owners. Since I give a lifetime warranty on my stuff it's good sense to make them as reliable as I can.
With new amps it's a nightmare. Many of the leading brands are engineered using a feature/price valuation system. This leads them to less than stellar build quality. A side effect is that every time you try and make a repair you run a substantial risk of breaking something else due to cost effective building practices. These manufacturers don't care. They make all their money on the sale, upfront.
As an individual I'm way more accessible than any corporation. No 20 option phone menus with me, no where to hide.
Corporate think has ruined more than 1 product or company.

I wonder who first made the unwise analogy between a skyscraper and "software"? Neither building standards nor software standards of robustness are uniform. They don't need to be.

A  $99 software product might be comparable to some home-built doghouse, while a skyscraper should be compared more to the software in a traditional phone company infrastructure for example.  And in the case of an airliner or a nuclear power plant, or even a car, the embedded software should be comparable with the physical structure, in terms of standards of robustness. (Right now I am thinking of robustness as a mix of reliability under expected circumstances and graceful degradation in the face of unexpected circumstances.)

It makes no sense to compare a skyscraper with a consumer-affordable software product in terms of robustness. It's more useful to speak first in terms of how much robustness is worth. DAW-crash-fixing is not (yet) up to the value of earthquake-hurricane-proof-skyscraper-building, or even accelerator-non-sticking-car-manufacturing. The scale of consequences often drives both robustness and cost. Complexity in software, on the other hand, is a lot cheaper than robustness, and is a lot more prevalent.

Bill B

Here is one idea, from an old fart... Some one copy and paste these 127 posts, into a word processor. And then take out an ad in a national newspaper. I wonder what the boys at Roland, would think of it. Hum? Any takers. Didn't think so. Old Fart Out

The past is the past.

 
As is this thread, which for all intents ended over a year ago.
 

Will an old Gong do, FastBIKerBoy? SteveC and CJ Yep,Two good point made, I just had to chime in, oops Gong in... Have a safe and Blessed weekend all. I am moving this weekend. Sounds fun huh?