jm24
The part that is really confusing for me is why it seems the CW managers never ask the major users if something makes sense to change. Especially when contemplating removing stuff.
For anyone who doesn't want to take the time to read through this entire thread, read post #13, which explains why the fractional scrolling tradeoff was made. According to Seth Kellogg: "[The] 'snap' scrolling introduced many undesirable UI and editing behaviors in regards to automation/take lanes, auto-zoom, track zoom, quick grouping, audio snap, editing, etc." These issues had been noted before, and now they're fixed but at the expense of not having a different feature. The missing feature seems to be really important to some people and totally irrelevant to others. Seth also gave two workarounds. While workarounds are not as convenient, they at least return a certain level of functionality.
Another issue brought up was a bug, and was fixed in a subsequent version.
It took several posts for most people to even understand what the problem actually is. Keith Albright chimed in with "If you want to scroll by whole tracks, click on the scroll arrows." Post #44 added more info about the relation to auto-zoom. I just finished a project with 164 tracks and didn't feel there was an issue with scrolling but perhaps I have a different workflow.
As to asking major users if something makes sense to change, post #26 sums up the issue very succinctly. Different people have different priorities, and rarely will you get an answer where everyone agrees (although I think "N" being truly a
global snap would be one of them). People who have gotten used to the smoother scrolling and more predictable editing behavior with respect to automation, auto-zoom, quick grouping, AudioSnap, etc. would probably be unhappy if it went back to the way it was. Remember, implementing one person's feature request may involve a tradeoff for some other user. It doesn't seem like there was an overwhelming +1 about the problem experienced by the OP. That doesn't make the issue any less important to those who miss the feature, but CW tries to balance needs to satisfy the majority of users.
As to why there aren't options so people can have more choices, post #36 explains it quite well.
Again, this isn't to criticize those who have a genuine problem with the tradeoff, but it's not that something was removed for no reason. It was removed to make a tradeoff that CW felt would, at least in theory, benefit a greater number of users.