Drone7

Anderton
And yes, SONAR is not perfect in terms of stability. But sadly, neither are any of the other programs I own, and I suspect a lot has to do with Windows and driver interactions. 
 

 
Agreed. Windows is the biggest fu_k-up i have dealt with since brown bread, and windows even disagrees many times with perfectly fine drivers and apps. The amount of grief and anxiety and loss of money and time that Windows has caused worldwide simply beggars belief.
Quite frankly Microsoft should have been sued a hell of a long time ago for causing mass destruction to the minds and emotions of mankind. And even to this day Microsoft still haven't mended the error of their way and have no intention of doing so. The code and design of the Windows 'registry' is the culprit, it's scarier than the dark web and is a total enigma. That would explain why 90% of people who make music use a Mac.
 
The Mac doesn't have a registry to get corrupted. Microsoft persist with the registry paradigm simply for dweebs and four-eyed twits and geeks and obsessive compulsives and people with no life. Microsoft is utterly de****able. Their company should be banned by the US constitution for crimes against humanity LOL.
 
I know a coder/programmer who had to go into the windows registry and make some modifications for proprietary apps etc, and when he saw the depths and craft and state of the Windows registry he simply couldn't believe what he found down there, he simply couldn't believe the state of it, IT WAS A MESS! Even on a so-called fully functional in-shape system.
 
No DAW or software is safe running on Windows. Microsoft is the most defiant negligent ignorant ****ed stubborn pigheaded useless company on the face of the planet. True story. Someone had to say it...
 

I can't argue with the anti-registry view. In my own programs I keep settings in a local .ini file.

Anderton
 
Just last week, Sylvan posted about the Melodyne bug. I tested and confirmed in the thread. Noel took the data in that thread. The weekend before NAMM, he created four builds in quick succession. When I tested #4, the bug had been fixed and a patch was released shortly thereafter (see, the new model DOES work!). 
 

First, one example proves nothing.
If anything it suggests the new model may not be working for the simple reason that something as important as Melodyne ARA support should not have been released with a major bug. And this was after 10 months since the last X3 update. Part of the new model  was  to be more reliable testing and many people took this statement to task  when it was first made.
In this case you have an example of the customer base acting as beta testers. and the reason the Melodyne bug was fixed ASAP was because it was SERIOUS.
Cake used to release hotfixes for this type of  bug. Install the hotfix for a particular issue if it affected you (at your own risk) and they would provide a more robust solution in the next update.
So Cake made 4 builds in rapid succession, you approved the last one that fixed that specific Melodyne issue. Was there any subsequent testing to see if the fix may have broken anything else ? 
This is your ' proof' the new paradigm works ?
 
 
I think this is the last of any design concept  type comments on my part. I am sure that folks in some parts will be pleased. If I can help someone with some issue I will. But discussing things like this post is completely pointless in this arena. 

Oh for heavens sake it's only been out a few weeks.. Stick with X3 a little longer if you are not liking it.

microapp
.... But discussing things like this post is completely pointless in this arena. 

Finally, a tiny breath of reason amidst a storm of hot air.  
 

microapp

Anderton
 
Just last week, Sylvan posted about the Melodyne bug. I tested and confirmed in the thread. Noel took the data in that thread. The weekend before NAMM, he created four builds in quick succession. When I tested #4, the bug had been fixed and a patch was released shortly thereafter (see, the new model DOES work!). 
 

First, one example proves nothing.

 
It proves something about that one example, unless you're finding Melodyne issues that no one else is finding - I haven't seen this issue raised since the official "hard" launch. Besides, I didn't offer it as "proof" of anything. I cited an example where the new model did in fact work.
 
And BTW, there were intermittent Melodyne issues in X3e that haven't popped up in Platinum for me, so maybe they were fixed as well. Time will tell.
 

If anything it suggests the new model may not be working for the simple reason that something as important as Melodyne ARA support should not have been released with a major bug.

 
IIRC this was isolated when SONAR had gone out to 200 people in a soft launch. It was fixed before the hard launch.
 

Part of the new model  was  to be more reliable testing and many people took this statement to task when it was first made.

 
The Platinum update isn't an example of the new model. What was rolled out were multiple updates put into one big upgrade, as was done for X3 and is exactly what the new model wants to avoid. What was stated specifically about the new model was that introducing individual features and fixes to members would allow for faster testing and deployment. In the instance I cited, it happened as it was supposed to. Will it continue to happen this way in the future? We'll find out.
 
You said "Looks like new features are about as buggy as in the X3 initial release" which just underscores the issues of releasing multiple features all at the same time (assuming that you've accurately gauged the relative bugginess of the two versions, which remains to be seen). 
 

In this case you have an example of the customer base acting as beta testers

 
You could say that any time a bug is found by the customer base they are acting as beta testers because the bug wasn't caught during beta tests.
 

and the reason the Melodyne bug was fixed ASAP was because it was SERIOUS.

 
Is it not a good thing that a serious bug was identified, reproduced, fixed, and tested ASAP?
 

Cake used to release hotfixes for this type of  bug. Install the hotfix for a particular issue if it affected you (at your own risk) and they would provide a more robust solution in the next update.

 
I've addressed this previously. The hotfixes were a good idea but there were issues with implementing it. Part of the intent behind the "one at a time" model and the modular installer is to bring back the speed of hotfixes but hopefully without having to revisit it with a later fix.
 

So Cake made 4 builds in rapid succession, you approved the last one that fixed that specific Melodyne issue.

 
I said I TESTED it, as did many other people inside and outside of Cakewalk, so I don't understand why you extrapolated that into saying I APPROVED the fix. If I test something and it works, I can assure you no one at Cakewalk says "Well gee, I can guess we can all go home now, it worked for Craig." I help out as much as I can, but Cakewalk is just a fraction of what I do and the company makes the decisions, not me. 
 

Was there any subsequent testing to see if the fix may have broken anything else?

 
No, Cakewalk's policy is not to test anything further if some random tester says "hey, works for me!" So everyone at Cakewalk just sat around and drank margaritas until the software was released. 
 
Seriously, it was tested a whole helluva lot before the software went on sale officially. From what I understand, once they knew what to look for (it took a while to find the recipe that could reproduce the bug), it was pretty easy bug to fix and the dev team was quite confident it had been fixed prior to release. Apparently they were right.
 

This is your 'proof' the new paradigm works ?

 
No, this is you extrapolating my citing an instance where it worked to be "proof" that the new paradigm works. 
 

I think this is the last of any design concept  type comments on my part.

Comments are fine, but I have a problem with rhetorical questions based on misinterpretations of what I say. Now, it takes two to tango and it's totally possible, and maybe even likely, I'm not sufficiently clear in my writing. I try to be precise with my choice of words, but I'm not going to sweat over them for hours unless I'm authoring an article for a magazine or a book...it's an internet forum. However it's also possible you are seeing my words through a filter that does not accurately interpret what I'm writing. I think it's generally better to seek clarification first before making assumptions. If the rhetorical questions are an attempt to seek clarification, then I've done my best to provide answers.