Continuing down a path of COMPLETE disregard of the professional customers WILL result in the DOWNFALL and DEMISE of CAKEWALK.

So creating who haa on the forums by putting out a crocked Sonar is money spinning.

I guess I will stick to X1 for the next ten years then! 

sometimes i come here and am surprised by the crazy large number of bug related threads. it's like a nightmare, that was haunting me, up until the day i bought a copy of studio one

 I officially stopped recommending Sonar as of X1

TheSteven

pjfarr

I'm not an expert on how this stuff is done, but if they fix some of the bugs from X1 in X2, couldn't they then put those fixes into a separate patch for the X1 users to download and install...? Or is that dumb?

Not a dumb question but its rarely as simply as that.
Software, unless its a dead product, is a continually evolving thing.  So a particular bug fix for X2 might have involve changes to code that didn't exist in X1 or relate to code that was modified for another reason in X2.


Even if the bugfix in X2 was applicable to X1 (and someone would have to spend the time to do an analysis to determine that) since people don't like to work for free you are taking about Cakewalk paying people to make the changes, to test the changes to make sure that they work as intended and don't cause new bugs, to create a release package, document the changes, update the archives, notify people (email,web update, etc), etc., etc.
It gets expensive fairly quickly - and how many new copies of X1 will it sell? or how many updates to X2 will they have to sell to cover the costs? What other projects will get delayed while the manpower is spent here instead of there.

I'm not saying that Cakewalk will or won't make create a patch - just that its not the simple process that many people assume that it is.

...Steven

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
] 

This is a common question/misconception so I will try and answer it. The analogy to companies like Microsoft and Apple are not comparing apples with apples. Cakewalk is a microscopic in size as compared to these companies, and we don't write operating systems that require periodic updates to support the platform. Its a completely different business model. 

The retail software model includes one product cycle worth of updates. This is common to most companies and not just Cakewalk. We released 4 updates to X1 spread out a year and a half after the release. These included hundreds of fixes and even some new features from ongoing work in X2. The last update was X1D after which we focused our efforts entirely on X2. In this model its simply impossible to continue updating earlier product releases once a new product is released. What might not be obvious to those outside this industry, are the costs involved. The assumption that if a problem is fixed in a new release its easy to move that into the older release is incorrect. Many of the issues addressed in a new version are deeply entrenched in deeper design changes or even newer features that don't exist in the earlier version. Moving these to an earlier version would take months of regression testing since they are likely to introduce new problems living in a different environment. It would also drastically slow down development of new versions. 

In X2 we committed ourselves to addressing user reported problems on equal footing with new features. Our upgrade prices are incredibly affordable for the value you get. There isn't a lot more we can do beyond this. 

But CW would have been able to stay in biz by selling their perfected S6PE to new buyers looking for a better and more reliable DAW