No Alex I was simply making an observation. 

It is however a distraction.. Moving on...

i'm a noob here, and i am on cw's side. i was a desktop tech on both pc's and mac's until retiring 3 years ago. i have seen all kinds of issues with software over the years, and out of all of them, I prefer this new model.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOW. Don't blame CW, because you made one that wasn't the wisest for your situation. Change to the model that works for you every 30 days, once a year, quarterly, whatever....... they have no idea what works best for your particular situation. i just make simple rock n roll music. sorry it seems both shift keys went south. been using cap lock but got tired of it.....

Anderton
So if there's some major bug one month that kills workflow for you, roll back or don't install and wait a month until it's fixed. 

Doktor AvalancheYup you decide which regression bugs you want to live with, it's a feature.

Anderton
It's an improvement compared to having a year's worth of bugs rolled into a yearly release, at which point you have to either live with all of them, or none of them by not using the new version. Yearly releases had regression bugs too.

That's stating the obvious and I'm talking about now. All software has regression bugs especially after fixes and enhancements. I was discussing about limiting them to specific areas (by concentrating releases on specific areas) and having a regular stabilization release for regression bugs only. I don't have an issue with monthly release cycle. My full points were made earlier.

I see the OP concerns. This new model works for some better than others. Studios work with clients over several months so starting a project in "Braintree" and having to finish it in "London" can be tricky. But I don't see it changing for the few. Who can say if an update later will crash their system seriously? And you won't know if the system is stable for you until you update. So far its ok with me. Just a few hiccups here and there. Hope his problem gets solved. Peace.

Anderton
 
You're forgetting that when doing the yearly releases, SONAR did have a reputation for being unreliable. Have you already forgotten about the shape X1 and X2 were in immediately upon their release?
 

Solely the fault of "marketing" driving the release process. Why did we NEED three X versions?
Because "fixing" the first two wasn't profitable. The problem is with the bean counters.
 
Marketing = revenue
Development = expenditures
 
The short sighted nature of most corporate software houses.

So you decide to upgrade from X3. You're a professional with clients that rely on your work. Do you take the chance with a new program every month? Or do you decide to come up with a plan that gives you the best chance of making use of new features yet safe enough to not put your client's work at risk. Or do you stay with a thoroughly tested and stable version and find a way to test the new version without putting your clients work at risk.

There's no point in blaming Cakewalk for the decision you make.

If the arguments about needing longer testing and one month is not long enough too much pressure blah blah blah then Platinum Alston, the first release should have been the most stable because it had been worked on longer than a year. For that matter very programs first release should be its best, and we know that's not true.

jatoth

Anderton
 
You're forgetting that when doing the yearly releases, SONAR did have a reputation for being unreliable. Have you already forgotten about the shape X1 and X2 were in immediately upon their release?
 

Solely the fault of "marketing" driving the release process. Why did we NEED three X versions?
Because "fixing" the first two wasn't profitable. The problem is with the bean counters.
 
Marketing = revenue
Development = expenditures
 
The short sighted nature of most corporate software houses.

X3 was a better program than X2, which was a better program than X1. That's why we needed three versions.
 
X3 did not just fall out of the sky. It required significant development costs to integrate features like ARA and VST3, let alone all the other features, as well as the cost of licensing programs like Melodyne. Without more resources (i.e., charging more for the software), it is not possible to continue fixing bugs in older versions for extended periods of time while simultaneously developing new features that the market demands - don't you remember all the requests for VST3 integration, and the issues people were having with V-Vocal?
 
If enough was charged for software to cover more or less indefinite bug fixes regardless of what happens in the rest of the world (new standards, OS changes, etc.), the price would be prohibitive. Then people would complain about the cost, because a lot of folks don't seem to realize that "free" bug fixes are never free. They are factored into the costs of software.
 
So you have a choice, because you can't do both: Keep polishing older versions until they become so out of sync with the rest of the world they become outdated anyway, or move forward and develop newer versions that remain competitive with a software world that works pretty much the same way Cakewalk does.
 
It's easy to hope that somehow, Cakewalk can exempt itself from the rules that govern this industry, our economic system in general, and the conflicting needs of different consumers ("Faster bug fixes!" "No, more testing!" "Add a Chord Track feature!" "I don't want new features, concentrate on core stability!" "I couldn't care less about the content!" "The content is great, I use it all the time!"). They are not immune to those rules so they must make tradeoffs. Cakewalk chooses the tradeoffs that according to user surveys, forum comments, and reviews would appear to benefit the greatest percentage of the customer base.

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.

Anderton
 You're forgetting that when doing the yearly releases, SONAR did have a reputation for being unreliable. Have you already forgotten about the shape X1 and X2 were in immediately upon their release?
 

 
Yup I think it's time to be honest here. The reason why the product is in the situation is now is because of the huge amount of bugs that were not tackled in past releases. Cakewalk under Gibson have demonstrated in Platinum that they are overcoming this situation pretty well but they are still playing catch up and it might be another year+. These are the facts we all have to deal with.
 
At this stage whatever cakewalk does there will be disruption, it has to happen, otherwise if they were to carry on like the Roland days there will be a lot more of it and the fire will get more out of control. The big question is now... can it be minimised and fires be contained so everybody has a good chance knowing where they are? and when to avoid them? Will we be able to make sure that whilst we avoid the fire, we don't make the mistake of crawling back into the old blaze by rolling back?
 
That situation needs improvement from my perception.