BobF
Ryan - Your 21 step install above seems a bit exaggerated to me.

Which bits does he exaggerate? Would you have prefered him to summarise it?

Having been in similar situations myself I realise you can't win at this game. If you say little you aren't doing anything. If you summarise you are missing something. If you show the full detail you are either overwhelming or exaggerating. Believe me when that list gets into the developers hands where problems gets turned into a solution, it drills down into much more detail and the complexity increases 10 fold.

Developing simple, easy to use software is complex and time consuming.

SPlat -
 
Ryan and other Bakers have done a fine job of speaking for Cakewalk to this point.
 
The 21 step process "reads" much more difficult than my experience.  I don't know how to say that any more clearly.  Ever heard "It sounds worse than it is"?  As bad as the previous experience might have been, the end result was (mostly) that things were installed and configured according to user preference.  The same cannot be said about the new process for the same group of users.
 
Somewhere in Boston there was a conscious decision made to move forward with CCC as is - without a single warning that old options would be gone.  Instead, CCC was released with the recommendation that it be used for the best experience.  No '*' with a note anywhere.
 
I have no problem with other users NOT having a problem with CCC.  My opinion will always be that it was a huge mistake to release CCC without being able to specify options for install - NOT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
 
You happy?  Great.  My discussion on this topic is not with you or other users.  Your opinion in the matter has ZERO influence over my opinion.
 
Trust is broken.  It won't be as easy to grab something new that comes out of Boston and run the installer without little yellow and red lights flashing and a neon sign that reads, "Is it worth the risk?"  :)
 
This is my last on the matter.  I'm bored with it now.

BobF
SPlat -
 
Ryan and other Bakers have done a fine job of speaking for Cakewalk to this point.
 
The 21 step process "reads" much more difficult than my experience.  I don't know how to say that any more clearly.  Ever heard "It sounds worse than it is"?  As bad as the previous experience might have been, the end result was (mostly) that things were installed and configured according to user preference.  The same cannot be said about the new process for the same group of users.
 
Somewhere in Boston there was a conscious decision made to move forward with CCC as is - without a single warning that old options would be gone.  Instead, CCC was released with the recommendation that it be used for the best experience.  No '*' with a note anywhere.
 
I have no problem with other users NOT having a problem with CCC.  My opinion will always be that it was a huge mistake to release CCC without being able to specify options for install - NOT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
 
You happy?  Great.  My discussion on this topic is not with you or other users.  Your opinion in the matter has ZERO influence over my opinion.
 
Trust is broken.  It won't be as easy to grab something new that comes out of Boston and run the installer without little yellow and red lights flashing and a neon sign that reads, "Is it worth the risk?"  :)
 
This is my last on the matter.  I'm bored with it now.

Thanks for your replies BobF. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss further.
 
The 21 step process unfortunately isn't an exaggeration. It might sound that way to you based on your level of experience, but spend a day in our call center and you'll quickly learn I might have even downplayed it a little. I actually left out a lot of hurdles that people faced as well.
 
Anyhow, no need to keep going down that path, since I get this conversation is about Cakewalk Command Center and not about the past. I just wanted to take a step back to discuss some of the goals for a moment.
 
I do want to clarify (or I guess just reiterate) one thing that I keep posting.
 
You don't have to use Cakewalk Command Center to install SONAR Platinum. You can download your installers from http://www.cakewalk.com/my-account/products. This has been an available option since day one. I'll see what we can do to hopefully make this a little bit more obvious for users.
 
I guess there are two different philosophies for how we could move forward.
 
Option 1) We keep repeating this discussion in a circle. Customers tell us what they think should have been day 1 features, we keep telling them what features were our focus, reiterate repeatedly how the old option is still available, etc. etc. We discuss the difference between new customers, power users, etc. Basically, we keep repeating this conversation.
 
Option 2) We acknowledge that there are still two ways to install the software and that maybe Cakewalk Command Center isn't the best option yet for some of our power users. However, with power user's feedback we can definitely improve things quite a bit, maybe to the point where C3 is the preferred option for every single user.
 
Personally I'd prefer to go with the second approach. I think that's ultimately what the spirit of getting some feedback is. Anyhow, FWIW, everyone's feedback is not falling on def ears. Thanks again for sharing.
 
 
 

Ryan -
 
I'll send you a PM.  I've already declared that my last has been posted on this topic.  Thanks for listening and acknowledging - those two things are very powerful. 

Ryan, the problem is that there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Let me explain by having us take a quick tour over to the ADK site where we get the following DAW customization options:

• OS/Programs Drive: [select drive]
• Audio Drive: [select drive]
• Audio/Samples Drive: [select drive]

 
And next, let's go to the StudioCat site where we get the following options:

•  OS drive: [select drive]
• Audio drive: [select drive]
• Samples drive 1: [select drive]
• Samples drive 2: [select drive]

 
Now, it is one thing to say: "If you need to specify custom locations, use the manual install method".
 
However it is something completely different to say: "I'd hate to burst your bubble here - but you are in the minority. The vast majority of users don't specify custom paths. Muddying up the first time/new user experience because Steven doesn't like it is a poor design choice and counter-productive to one of C3's major goals: remove obstacles to firing up a project and making music fast (herein referred to as goal 1)."
 
A comment like that shows a disconnect from reality, and is what frustrates users. While customers needing to specify install locations are in the minority, it is such an important part of a professional DAW that I, and I'm sure many others, are scratching our heads as to why exactly are we required to explain and justify this requirement? If a first time user can handle the complexity of using a DAW, they surely won't be intimidated by leaving an install path at its default value during installation.
 
I think we can all agree this is a good attempt at a v1.0 product (the rest of the release is stellar), and that we look forward to improvements to it. I'm just pointing out what I believe to be the root cause of frustration. Simply the fact that this should have been a day one feature, that we should not need to explain or justify why it is needed, and that CW treats it like it would be nothing but a "poor design choice" if it was offered.

@Silktone I'd see your point about a disconnect if Ryan said these enhancements were not important but I don't see a single quote to confirm this. Not only that he's stated future intentions as clear as day. You can write what you read into it till the cows come home (I see you take a lot of the points out of context to enforce your view) but that doesn't change what he's actually written.

As Ryan stated in the last post this is getting circular. He says he prefers option 2 and you are saying he prefers option 1.

There is nothing wrong with being told to use the manual install method as that's the only option right now for custom install. He says the vast majority of users don't care about custom paths and that's probably true, that is not a statement of intention. He has acknowledged improvements are needed. That does not show disconnect that shows a grip with reality.

From a design perspective it makes total sense, if the feature is not ready and well designed then don't offer it. CCC is well designed it just lacks features a lot of people need as you have acknowledged. There was no reason not to release it as it is a step forward and there's always the old manual install for everybody else. If you don't like CCC right now the choice is simple, don't use it.

CCC certainly made my upgrade a lot easier and quicker. I had to spend 30 mins moving stuff around afterwards but that would have happened anyway with the manual method. I look forward to improvements in this area.

Just imagine... If Willy, Seth, and Ryan had invested the time spent responding to this thread on actually fixing them, we would be that much closer =D

The incessant "status meetings" cycle just keeps people from being able to focus properly. Most of us have been there... Explaining the same thing to each person who asks because THEY find it important.

Food for thought at least... The concerns have been acknowledged by those who need to know.

Dead Horse Alert...
A REAL power user doesn't  need
help from Cakewalk to install their stuff where they want
on THEIR  personal DAW...
figure it out and make some music...
 
Mel
 
 

SplatNot only that he's stated future intentions as clear as day.

i repectfully disagree with that statement - he has been as vague as usual, as craig states in another thread, they're "lifting the curtain slightly" but there'll be no road map... if there were a roadmap, then i would consider it "clear as day" but right now, as before, it's more of a pea-souper ;-)

@Silktone I would say as a one developer to another you should really look up agile programming and the philsophophys behind it. Right now cakewalk is adopting the release early release often method. This is a change. They aren't releasing often and releasing prematurely which so many software companies do (under Roland they did and they are still playing catchup). CCC's features are lacking but they work well and enhancements will be made when they feel it is right to release. Patches with any bugs with it were delivered in a timely manner. This is a major test for cakewalk right now, if they rush release new CCC features because they are under pressure rather than wait until they are happy with the solution then I take it all back. I doubt that will happen looking at the current situation and I hope they hold steady.