It wouldn't take more manpower (check my other posts for why). When I mean a whole month for testing regression bugs, I of course mean they don't spend the entire month doing regression testing,it means they have the month to do it. It also means they have a month to collect user reports trickling in and develop the fixes.

And yes they have to rely on us I get that point...but it's the same with any software nowadays. A 30 day turnover time though is just mind boggling for me I'm amazed it can all get done.. So I agree but for different reasons.. Something's gotta give..

Paul P

Doktor Avalanche
Another reason for #13/#15/#17. A whole month for testing regression bugs.

If Cakewalk had the manpower to do that, they wouldn't rely on us.

It's not just manpower, it's having a zillion different hardware platforms to test with. There's no way Cakewalk can have a test setup with every possible permutation of operating system revision, graphics card, ancillary software, etc.

Yup. And then do that over 30 days, and throw in a load of new features with more bugs and fix old issues which in turn could create more bugs. My idea looks like a necessity now for people want releases with reduced growing pains.