I appreciate Cakewalk has sorted this. In the meantime I'll wait for QA to go through appropriate tests and concentrate on Maschine in the meantime now we know a good approx turnaround.

mudgel
Yes it is but you wont find a 7 page thread about that. But you will find all sorts of spruikers carrying on as if they really did know what was happening inside Sonar. Go make music.

John T
In the sense that the third post is Noel saying he'd look into it, perhaps. In the sense that "so it was worth another seven pages of bad feeling and wild speculation", no, definitely not.

paulo
It's sad to see how anyone who has a problem or a view other than how wonderfully rosy everything is slammed for being "negative" and often hounded into submission on this forum these days.

Kylotan
So let's not pick at each other for being negative or even positive;

Check the title of the thread and
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3231522
 
It was a discussion!  No kittens were killed... And no 'fair game' trolls turned up, actually wasn't all bad.

Thanks to Noel for addressing the drum map problem quickly. However, the actual show stopper for me that forced me to roll back to the D release was the issue with controller lanes that I mentioned earlier and just reported as CWBRN-33387. I can live with the D release for the moment, but I hope nonetheless that this issue is addressed soon as well, because it makes working with midi controllers very inconvenient.

I don't know whether the number of pages in a thread is a measure of some pressure being brought to bear on Cakewalk to fix a problem. Or even indicating a problem fix turn around.
Personally I think it's more likely to do with timing. The fact that the drum map bug has just been bought about by a fix to the same feature. Same thing happened with the pre-release of Platinum that uncovered a problem with Melodyne which was fixed in a Alston b patch just after the official release.

I admit that there are a few zealous people who come into threads and make bold statements about the infallibility of Cakewalk as in this thread. It's certainly not my opinion and I disregard their viewpoints and also don't comment on them. But I will say at least there comments aren't divisive not are they derogatory or based on paranoia about ulterior motives being behind Cakewalk's motives for doing things.
I think we've never had a better opportunity for dialog with Cakewalk and it was to Noel's credit that he returned time and time again to discuss matters with the OP in this thread despite the many contributors who's comments could so easily have derailed this discussion.

Presenting a number of quotes independent of the posts in which they occurred is a poor way to lend credence to your argument. All it does is leave an inaccurate trail of the flow of the various posts should someone think the conversation actually went that way. The bug is fixed, Kylotan has got a positive result and I'm not at odds with him. I'm outta this thread now.

ralf
Thanks to Noel for addressing the drum map problem quickly. However, the actual show stopper for me that forced me to roll back to the D release was the issue with controller lanes that I mentioned earlier and just reported as CWBRN-33387. I can live with the D release for the moment, but I hope nonetheless that this issue is addressed soon as well, because it makes working with midi controllers very inconvenient.

Ralf we're looking into it.

mudgel
Presenting a number of quotes independent of the posts in which they occurred is a poor way to lend credence to your argument. All it does is leave an inaccurate trail of the flow of the various posts should someone think the conversation actually went that way.

Indeed.

 
Well just remember the thread title isn't called "DRUM MAPS ARE BROKEN - CAKEWALK FIX IT!!!" or something... Although people have seem to have been attempting to focus in on it that way ... Shades of grey... And different topics were discussed.

mudgel
Presenting a number of quotes independent of the posts in which they occurred is a poor way to lend credence to your argument.

I guess you could call it art then, that is attempting to generalise generalistic statements. Remember I quoted both "sides" for "balance" if you will....  I was pointing to:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3231522


Ta.
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

ralf
Thanks to Noel for addressing the drum map problem quickly. However, the actual show stopper for me that forced me to roll back to the D release was the issue with controller lanes that I mentioned earlier and just reported as CWBRN-33387. I can live with the D release for the moment, but I hope nonetheless that this issue is addressed soon as well, because it makes working with midi controllers very inconvenient.

Ralf we're looking into it.

Again, thank you!

John T

cparmerlee
 The new gadget-of-the-month attracts hobbyists and is off-putting to the commercial users.
 

Not at all. Some of those gadgets-of-the-month are extremely appealing to commercial users. I used drum replacer (to deal with a poorly-tracked kick drum) yesterday on two mixes that have been signed off by the band today. I was hoping it would go that smoothly, but if it hadn't, I'd have rolled back the update, and took a different approach.
 
Honestly, I think the ability to roll back has completely solved this issue. I used to only do updates when there was a couple of days downtime between large-ish projects. Now I can do them whenever I feel like, and if a problem arises, I can roll back.
 
 

That's a really practical application. The value of such a seemingly simple function can't be underestimated. When I was still working (pre-retirement) I always quarantined a new version until it was tested as acceptable. That could sometimes take one or two updates even more at X1.

mudgel
That's a really practical application. The value of such a seemingly simple function can't be underestimated. When I was still working (pre-retirement) I always quarantined a new version until it was tested as acceptable. That could sometimes take one or two updates even more at X1.

We're looping, everybody agrees roll back is cool (what I would expect from a modern application, Cakewalk under Gibson should be credited for getting the functionality out), the point was having to cope with a moving target. If functionality X is fixed and functionality Y has become broken in the latest version (via regression), the only choice could be to roll back to an earlier version where functionality X is unfixed (via regression in previous version), and functionality Y isn't broken.
 
How do you fix the never ending loop? Exclusive stability releases once in a while, or additional stability build once every month (two tier path)... Looks like we are getting one this month, this is the second over 5 releases (the first was mainly rolled out to clear up licensing issues upon the first release, a situation Cakewalk could not ignore)...

Something I would note to maybe add a bit of perspective is that Cakewalk's method of "fixing bugs and adding features" is pretty common in professional software, as is maintaining only the latest version. At work the researchers make a lot of use of Matlab, HFSS, and Cadence and if you think you've seen expensive software, you ain't seen nothin' until you've seen the price tag on those. They are subscription models, you have to pay yearly and if you don't, your license expires and you lose all access to the software. New versions come out at varying rates. Matlab likes to do one twice a year. No fixes in-between, twice a year only. HFSS is more traditional, you get a new major release once a year or so, and then maybe a couple fix releases for that (two is the most I've seen).
 
What is common is as soon as a new version comes out, development of the old one stops cold. Ansoft doesn't release any point release fixes for old HFSS versions, only the latest. Matlab is more or less a continuous development model where a version gets released and then they just start work on the next one. They allow you to download their older software, usually quite far back (Mathworks will let me go back to Matlab R11 which is from 1999) but there's no support in terms of patches or the like. You can use the old version if you've code/models that need it, but it is what it is and is never getting changed, only the new version is under development.
 
It's just how it goes with what companies choose to spend resources on. They spend development time on the current version, not on old ones. Really the only major exception is the big OS vendors, and they have rather a lot of resources to do so. Even then only MS really does what many people seem to think should be "standard" which is support all their old code bases for a long time (10 years in MS's case) for a single payment. Apple only supports two versions old, or about 3 years, RedHat supports RHEL for 10-12 years but at a cost of $350+ per year per server to maintain support.