Sanderxpander
The fact that an update is available doesn't mean I have to do it, which is an important bit of information I tend to forget.

This is the advantage of a cumulative system. If you don't update something one month, it will still be there next month. Still, I think for most people the process has been relatively painless, and it should get more painless in the months ahead.

Anderton
 
I don't think anyone is expecting users to lower their expectations. .....
 
 
Either way, bugs are unavoidable. The question is would you rather have a few features (with a few bugs) happening frequently, or lots of features (and a proportionately larger number of bugs) happening infrequently. 
 

I think that is exactly what was implied here
We are constantly being told here on this forum that "bugs are unavoidable".
In fact you just asked us if we want a "few bugs" or a "larger number of bugs".
As consumers, we bought a product with advertized features. We "expected" those features to work as advertized.
Not all of the features worked properly for everyone. Those that it did not function properly for are told to expect some bugs. (ie. lower your expectations)
 
I'm not trying to argue with you Craig, I admire all of the work you do here. And I mean that sincerely. It's just you are not the only one repeatedly telling us to expect bugs when we just expect our software to work.

As I said earlier - you want less bugs, then wait a month..... It's that easy (or hard).
 
For me what is interesting to see is how quick Cakewalk fixes regression bugs, so far so good.
They need to fix all the regression bugs before the next release that is what is most important. The evidence is so far that they will.
 
That gives users a choice
 
- Adopt quickly and get less stability and more bugs and your excitement is immediately satisfied.
- Adopt a month later and get more stability and less bugs.
 
That's the choice anyway for those who expect to be continuously subscribed for 12+ months....

jatoth

Anderton
 
I don't think anyone is expecting users to lower their expectations. .....
 
 
Either way, bugs are unavoidable. The question is would you rather have a few features (with a few bugs) happening frequently, or lots of features (and a proportionately larger number of bugs) happening infrequently. 
 

I think that is exactly what was implied here
We are constantly being told here on this forum that "bugs are unavoidable".
In fact you just asked us if we want a "few bugs" or a "larger number of bugs".
As consumers, we bought a product with advertized features. We "expected" those features to work as advertized.

 
All I am asking for is REALISTIC expectations. Not low expectations.
 
Apple has $178,000,000,000 in cash on hand and believe me, they have plenty of hot shot software developers. But OS X Yosemite has bugs. Mavericks had bugs. The iPhone has bugs. When I go to update apps on my iPad, virtually every single app update references "various bug fixes." The last system updates from Apple itself to my iPhone and iPad referenced bug fixes. How many patches has Microsoft, another giant company, installed on your computer within the past year? Why has Microsoft dropped support for 8.0, insisting that users must upgrade to 8.1 to get further updates?
 
Go to any DAW forum and you will see complaint after complaint about bugs. Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools...it doesn't matter, you'll find plenty of posts about bugs (which like the posts here are sometimes real bugs, and sometimes imagined). Nor are DAWs the only software product category with complaints. Interface companies, virtual instrument companies, digital hardware effects...all software has bugs. Period.
 
Why would Cakewalk be immune from this truism? To hold a small company in Boston to a considerably higher standard than Apple, Microsoft, Steinberg, etc. etc. etc. is absurd.
 
But really, all of these are minor league bugs. Check out some real bugs: In 2014, automakers issued more than 550 recalls for more than 52 million vehicles, according to the Associated Press. GM alone issued at least 60 recalls in 2014, with my favorite being to advise owners of certain SUVs not to park in garages because the cars could catch fire by themselves when left unattended. These bugs won't just leave a control bar module over on the right when you exit. They can kill you or set your house on fire.
 
Some records have lousy mastering jobs. I can guarantee the record company will not give you a free updated version in a month--they'll charge you all over again for a "re-mastered" version. Doctors misdiagnose patients, which sometimes leads to death or amputating the wrong limb. Food is recalled from grocery shelves because sometimes it's poisonous, and sometimes because it has, well, bugs (and I don't mean errant lines of code).
 
Imperfection is a fact of life in every facet of life. What matters isn't whether or not people make mistakes, because EVERYONE makes mistakes. What matters is how mistakes are addressed. But even then, you can never please some people. When they get their bug fixes, they'll sniff "Well, the bugs shouldn't have been there in the first place."
 
I can't help but wonder if the people who complain about bugs in this and every other software forum are as equally intolerant of imperfection in their own lives.

The point was simple and directed to the CCC. How many dissertations NOT on topic must be read before this is understood?

mettelus
The point was simple and directed to the CCC. How many dissertations NOT on topic must be read before this is understood?

Initially, yes, the point was directed at the CCC and simple. To recap, the OP was about thinking all the tutorials had to be downloaded to get the new help files, and at least the CCC should be able to be paused to make the process easier.
 
However, a simple and direct solution was offered to the OP’s issue in post #3. To recap, by using online help, nothing needs a lengthy download or be paused, and you can access all the new help files. These days, online help files are a common way to distribute documentation, particularly when time is of the essence. And as scook pointed out, the PDF is updated only rarely.
 
Despite offering a solution to the original issue, which typically ends a thread, the thread then turned into a more general discussion of dissatisfaction with particular elements of the CCC. Then it eventually broadened into a discussion of bugs in general, and how some considered it inexcusable that the CCC should have bugs. Post #29 then went beyond the CCC with respect to bugs.
 
Having already addressed the OP’s issue in post #3 with what seemed like an appropriate solution, I started addressing the later posts. It is not uncommon for threads to broaden into other topics as they continue, particularly if a solution to the initial problem was presented early on.

Well the unpausable demon has done it to me again, unfortunately another easy and flawless update, everything seems to work as described, and my custom control bar module is right where I like it, over there on the right hand side.

My comments were not directed about the CCC either... It works OK for me I look forward to enhancements.

I was saying I can live with regression bugs if we get hotfixes later like this control panel issue. I expect new features to work as advertised a month later. Long term bugs will be fixed in priority I'm sure each month.

I can't live however with installers that plaster files over my hard drive willy nilly it's sloppy. It is REALISTIC to at least expect installers to install files to the correct locations as specified in the registry. I can't remember any other vendor having the same issue (maybe in the 90's).

To imply that it's not a big issue because most people install samples or plugins on their C drive by default is crazy. Most people who are serious about their DAW environment want their samples and other stuff on separate partitions for performance and file management... It's called best practice. And those that have done this don't want to go chasing around fixing issues that the installer couldn't be bothered to accommodate for. Those people need to be listened to and not be dismissed as rare use cases.

At least you have validated my point of initially offering a workaround as a "solution." Thank you for that.

My takeaway is that this is the "expected norm" to deal with going forward.

Well Doktor, as I said earlier, I agree but I limited my comment to the placement of instrument samples and programs. However since we're on the subject, I'm not a fan of the whole C:\Users\Appdata\Roaming\Not So Roaming\Common Files\Data You Thought You Knew Where It Was\Settings\ type of structure, either...particularly because the "standard" place to put things seems to change over time. The Mac used to be free of this kind of silliness, so I was pretty distressed when Apple OS X started having "user libraries" and such. Try finding where the files are for the desktop images sometime...argh.
 
Several years ago I created a Vstplugins folder in the Programs folder and installed all my plug-ins to that. It made life easier, but now VST3 plug-ins are handled differently. And registering DirectX plug-ins...the less said, the better.
 
I also think you shouldn't have to go into the registry to tell an instrument where to find its samples. There should be a preference that says "The samples are here." I also think samples and programs should live in the same place, because the samples take up a lot of space and the programs don't. Might as well have them all in one place so a backup catches them all.