charlyg
Someone seems to forget that EVERYONE with a MS OS has different hardwar,e software,and maybe even OS versions. Not to mention many configurations and settings on the way. There is NO WAY for ANY company to test every possible combination. To say it's the fault of the company is just asinine...or juvenile. You can pick...
 
Better yet, please list all bug free programs you know of.....

Yup and cakewalk as do other companies have to rely on customers to test their products somewhat. MS Windows 10 perfect example. That is a given and has been the new paradigm for quite some time. Basically software houses have released open source development methodologies work (ie agile).

I may have missed this. Can you please quote the people asking for bug free software?

microapp

John

microapp
 
I think Craig hit the nail on the head. Releasing increasingly buggy products is the new corporate paradigm. Companies cannot afford the diligence required to release near perfect code.

I don't think that is what he was saying. I think you have misquoted him. 

I don't think so. I just put it in a very terse way.

As someone who has been deliberately misquoted so people can use that to advance their own agendas, I think you gave an accurate summary, depending on how you define "diligence." If you mean:
 
"earnest and persistent application to an undertaking; steady effort; assiduity"
 
I believe companies by and large do make a real effort to produce quality products, because if they don't, they will be at a competitive disadvantage. There are some companies that ship products they know have problems, but the reality is that bugs will always be found and there can be serious repercussions if something is discovered at the last minute, when marketing campaigns and such are already in place. If they decide the bug affects 1% of their user base and fixing it would require a 3-month delay, applying the diligence to fix that bug could be economic suicide, given the thin margins of the music software industry. So if you use the above definition, they are diligent. However if you use the legal definition as:
 
"the degree of care required in a given situation"
 
...then it's true that companies cannot afford the degree of diligence required "in a given situation," e.g., software that works as expected and advertised. There are just too many variables. Even companies that do public betas don't catch all the issues.
 

Originally, the non-subscription subscription model was touted as a way to produce more features with less bugs. Is this true? I  am not sure. Hard to quantify but it seems about the same really.

 
As a very long-time SONAR user I am quite certain that there are fewer bugs being generated with new features. However they are put under the microscope because if there's one or two big features in a month, they will get everyone's attention and not be lost in the 12-24 other new features that would come all at once in a yearly update. And certainly, dozens of bug fixes every month that reach back to the queue of legacy issues is something that didn't happen before. My sense is more bugs are being squashed than are being generated. However, there's still a backlog of legacy bugs and while progress is being made, work remains to be done.
 

But what has happened is that I increasingly read 'It is easy to roll back, the bug that killed your  workflow will be fixed in a later release'. This to me, means that complacency in regards to quality is on the rise. I think we as users and Cake as a company must be careful about this attitude.

 
This is the one part of your post where I don't necessarily agree. Yes, there is complacency (resignation?) in the sense I've used - you simply cannot expect all software to work out of the chute, whether it's due to an OS change or someone in QC finding out their brother died and they had a bad day...or a hardware company in China substitutes a motherboard component because "it saves 23 cents and no one will notice." There would be complacency if when a new bug was introduced, forumites said "hey, I don't care" and Cakewalk said "yeah, we're not going to fix it." But I think Cake's track record of fixing bugs that ride along with new features is, frankly, excellent. It's rare that a problem persists past the next update. It's the legacy bugs from previous regimes that are the most problematic, because they're shrouded in the mists of time.
 
And as pointed out in a previous post, people are not forced to update. If someone finds the Start Screen's ability to pin projects and access templates easily is compelling, they might be willing to have to put up with its slow speed...while someone like me disables it, only to re-enable it when the speed issue was solved.
 
Given the current state of the art, I feel Cakewalk has made the best of the situation by offering a choice to users, which is what the rollback thing is all about. I think it's perfectly acceptable to choose to roll back or not roll back. I hear that some people have plug-in issues with Kingston, so they've rolled back. But I don't use those plug-ins, so I'm more than happy to take advantage of the significant speed increase. Of course the ultimate choice would be a la carte software, but at least for now that seems technically challenging, if not impossible.
 
 

Unfortunately this is the environment we have created (allowed). It is pervasive. In order to compete, companies must adopt this mindset regardless of the desires of the individuals comprising the company or any adverse consequences thereof. Wait until the TPP/TTIP goes into effect. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

kevinwal
Yes, a paraphrase of a longer comment by Noel (I type too fast, I thought Noel and Neil came out, apologies Noel!) intended to let you know that the point you made had already been addressed. Here is the relevant quote from Noel:
 
"On the other hand I find bug fixes to existing features relatively more likely to introduce unwanted side effects."
 
which seems to answer fairly well a comment you made later in the thread:
 
"A scheduled stability release (on some sort of cycle with post regression) will simply extinguish all those arguements and will send a pretty good message to people that they don't have to upgrade every month."
 
I hope that clears things up for you. Damn me as a skeptic, but I'm quite certain you didn't really need the citation; you knew exactly what I was saying. You are, after all, a Doktor. 
 
All just my opinion. As I said, the monthly updates work very well for me, and I sympathize with those for whom it is a pain.

I forgot to address this. Not at all related. A stability release would tackle regression bugs from recently released features and identified trivial bug fixing that is extremely unlikely to break the product. As per below...

Doktor Avalanche
1) Enhancement and new feature freeze.
2) Regression bugs tackled (that's with new functionality only, ie platinum features).
3) If time fix trivial legacy bugs that are unlikely to threaten the stability of the release.

Pretty standard practice stuff.

And it's iterative as well, meaning if the release brings up new bugs, they get fixed straight away until the release is deemed stable.

Further info about Regression testing...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_testing

To back that up here is more of what Noel says, and it certainly makes sense to me. Cakewalk I'm sure does do regression similar to what I mention above all the time (they aren't crazy), they just don't do dedicated scheduled releases for it. There's always a new feature in each release.

Noel
Very often new features are isolated from other features or build upon existing infrastructure. As such any bugs arising manifest in the new feature itself and NOT in pre-existing features.
Even in the case of a complex integrated feature like patch points there were very few bugs that affected other areas of the application - and this was during its development prior to release.

I edited the post above quite a bit.. Apols..

What are the arguments really? Software has bugs released software will contain bugs. Wow, what a revelation.  

Craig,
I agree with you completely about the rollback feature. Given the realities of the situation, an incremental rollback is infinitely desirable over rolling back 6 months or a year to the last major update (e.g Cubase) and undoing all the working improvements.
While I do not completely agree with the concept that scheduled monthly updates automatically reduces bugs,etc,etc,etc., I think it is possible if done correctly . I do think the manner in which CW has implemented the program is a good way to mitigate many issues that arise from realities that neither CW or anyone else has control over whatsoever.  There will never be perfect software or perfect anything which humans do. But we can recognize this as a fact and take measures to reduce the impact. I think CW is attempting this.

John
What are the arguments really? Software has bugs released software will contain bugs. Wow, what a revelation.  

Way to generlise a fairly complex discussion to the lowest common dominator. This adds nothing other than perhaps encouraging polarised viewpoints (perhaps targeted at people who don't read threads but have strong oponions).

You just ignore everything that has been written here and write some general statement.

If you genuinely don't know the arguements perhaps read the thread carefully.

Edited.

No its an endless argument. One that at present I see no purpose for. Heck I'm not even sure what the thread is about anymore. 

Anderton
But I think Cake's track record of fixing bugs that ride along with new features is, frankly, excellent. It's rare that a problem persists past the next update.

And I'm going to totally agree with you here Craig. Regression issues get fixed with new features pretty well.

The crutch of the issue is they get packaged with brand new features that in turn need their regression issues fixed every single month without fail. Roll back and you are in a similar scenario just with different regression issues to cope with (which become unfixed as you have rolled back).