CakeAlexS
I don't think anybody wrote anything about fixing 'all' bugs, but there has to be a certain level that should be deemed acceptable, and some have to be fixed if critical.

 
And that's the whole point - where does the line get drawn? Who decides what is criticial and what is acceptable? In my calculus analogy, when does the ball reach the wall? For people who use the playlist, its functional issues were critical. I don't use the playlist, so I don't care. Someone at Cakewalk decided the playlist affected enough people that it needed to be fixed, but also decided that less critical bugs, or bugs for which there are workarounds or solely affect cosmetics, did not need the same priority.
 

Not being able to fix 'all' bugs of course is entirely valid as all bugs will never be identified, however it is a weak argument to say it is impossible to fix entirely reproducible bugs over a reasonable period of time

Of course it's possible if you devote all your resources to bug fixes, ignore feature requests, don't maintain a competitive edge by developing a new version, and can QC all the fixes so thoroughly that fixing some bugs won't introduce other, and possibly even more subtle, bugs that then need to be fixed. Anything's possible, but at some point the realtiy is that it's necessary to decide where to make the inevitable tradeoffs that have to be made.
 
I've never seen a software company that's immune from this reality of making decisions regarding tradeoffs; Cakewalk is no different. This isn't an apologia for software companies, just what I think is a realistic assessment of what's involved in the production of software.
 
But the same holds true for almost everything; it's possible to produce a newspaper without errors, but the fact-checkers spend the most time on the most important stories. That way if they're going to be humiliated it happens in the story on page 48 about the hair salon opening, not the headline on page 1 about the cause of a plane crash.
 
 

Anderton
Who decides what is criticial and what is acceptable?

That's easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development)
 
Assuming agile development methodology is being used... I suspect it is (or am I wrong?). The flipside of this methodology (as with all development methodologies) is that customer demands can be misread. For instance many people just read the forums but don't post, therefore it is difficult to listen to their demands. My bug list is compiled from many users not just one user so it is across the board. It is fairly immune from one persons opinion as it's there clear as day. How do you define who's opinion is more important than the rest? The person who shouts the loudest? The answer is you don't, you consider impact and how long these things have been out there in the field. You also consider the possible reputation of the product.... i.e. what is clearly visible from the consumer perspective. The fact that there is a debate about this at all should allow a few pointers.

Fix existing features before adding new ones

Right, and don't bother fixing features you are going to replace anyway in X4 (waste of time). I have a fairly good guess as to what I suspect we will see in X4 purely by what isn't being fixed (I hope I am right).

CakeAlexS
I don't think anybody wrote anything about fixing 'all' bugs, but there has to be a certain level that should be deemed acceptable, and some have to be fixed if critical. Not being able to fix 'all' bugs of course is entirely valid as all bugs will never be identified, however it is a weak argument to say it is impossible to fix entirely reproducible bugs over a reasonable period of time

Nowadays it is all about user experience. Support and project managers are now being listened to a bit more and are managing to successfully fend off the marketing dept who keep demanding new features. The days whereby it was acceptable to have longstanding visible bugs for years are now gone.

Alex, I completely find this post to be ridiculous.  I understand what is "reasonable" and "acceptable" are highly subjective, but do you?
Of course CW can fix every bug in X3 as of 4/25/14 10:30 CDT for everyone on almost any system if they only used things included in Sonar.  But most people use other things too.
 
I've spent a lot of money on CW products since '95, but I've spent much more on other software and when I see a company I've spent over $1500 supporting taking Sonar off their supported DAW list, that gets my attention far more than anything CW can do.
 
Is that acceptable?  Sure.  
 
I don't post much, and here this is apparently a minority opinion, but: I think you (& thru you Jlien) do a great disservice to CW, this forum and to any kid buying his first DAW who thinks whatever he/she does is just going to work. 
 
Everybody does different things, but some people here are actually very helpful, and not elated to find a bug they can, in most cases, easily jump over.
 
  
 

Well every one is entitled to their own opinion... Alex and jlien please continue as before :-)

> Alex, I completely find this post to be ridiculous.  I understand what is "reasonable" and "acceptable" are highly subjective, but do you?
 
Yup that's why I chose my words carefully. It is entirely a matter of opinion as to what is "reasonable" and "acceptable". I don't see any point in expressing my actual opinion here on these matters, as everybody will have their own idea or opinion as to what this is.
 
The only real opinion I have expressed is the Bakers have been doing a great job so far.

> I don't post much, and here this is apparently a minority opinion, but: I think you (& thru you Jlien) do a great disservice to CW, this forum and to any kid buying his first DAW who thinks whatever he/she does is just going to work. 
 
Sorry I just troubleshoot, try to reproduce, document and log bugs in order to help the product to become more stable. I believe we directly contributed into making X3E and (hopefully in future) X3F more stable by making sure bugs are easily understood. I expect no prizes for this.

Oops wrong thread

CakeAlexS
...It is entirely a matter of opinion as to what is "reasonable" and "acceptable". I don't see any point in expressing my actual opinion here on these matters, as everybody will have their own idea or opinion as to what this is.
 

And IMO, there's nothing on the current list that absolutely requires an X3F.   However, would I install it should it come to pass?   Abso****lutely!         
 
I guess I'm just not buying the concept that there must be additional bug fixes in the X3 series - this is just based on my experience, reading threads from others here, and the nature of the issues on the list.   As Jlien stated, small niggles can add up.  However, that's where we're at with X3e today...  and from all accounts, X3e is one of the (if not the) best SONAR releases ever.   
 
From my perspective I think I'm more curious to see what the bakers come up with next than anything else.   I mean, X3 introduced ARA, VST3, track colors, new comping workflow and tools, video enhancements, etc., etc.   Just imagine what X4 might bring (including lots of bug fixes of course )
 
OK, as you were...
 

> And IMO, there's nothing on the current list that absolutely requires an X3F.
 
I would tend to disagree from my own perspective, there are definitely some issues that are of major concern IMHO for me and probably for others, I would scan through the list again (I will avoid drilling into the specifics as it would invite a football team style thread as everybody's opinion will differ). So let us agree to disagree, of course I do regard your opinion as entirely valid from your perspective so I would say you are not wrong. But it entirely depends what features you are most using, if you are not using feature X then obviously you don't care about feature X being fixed. You might consider working around acceptable, or you might not. Other's opinions will differ. Who is to say who is right, and who is wrong.
 
End of the day it's not our decision it's Cakewalk so who cares what we think, nothing wrong with voicing opinions however.
 
BTW don't get me wrong, Sonar is perfectly stable and usable in most scenarios and just keeps getting better. I keep stressing this fact over and over again.
 
BTW I just took one point from your last post, your overall post was of course entirely fairly balanced and well put (I get it).