Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]

Seth Kellogg [Cakewalk]

paulo

Seth Kellogg [Cakewalk]

Jlien X
Strange. I PMed Ryan three times but haven't got any response. I hope he's not dead.

He's not dead. He's just very busy with Tech Support stuff at the moment. Someone is on vacation and someone else is out sick.

Who's looking after the cats ?

ALL THE CATS ARE BELONG TO ME

Good thing too. I'm very allergic!!!
 
Jlien X, sorry for the delay, was travelling for a bit. I sent you an email 

 
Thank you very much for your email, Ryan. I replied with information you needed.
I'm glad the tickets that have been unfortunately overlooked are now taken care of properly. I hope the bugs will be fixed in X3a.

comparing sonar to products by microsoft and Libre Office is truly apples, oranges and mangos.  One simply is not going to run into the same kind of issues doing the most common types of task for Word/Writer as one would recording and mixing a 32 track audio and midi track in Sonar.  Microsoft fixes tend to lean on the side of security issues.  The patches are often not needed if the computer does not go on the internet.  In fact, MS fixes are often detrimental if you have a stable system.  A classic case being the recent one that totally screwed up video in many programs. 
 
Many seem to confuse feature request/changes with actual bugs.  Not liking the way a feature works is not a bug.  I do wish the more common actual bugs would get patched more often but I also find it unreasonable to expect Cakewalk to jump for every minor individual minor issue.

I hope the bug fixes will be available to x2a users who don't upgrade to X3. After all, we shouldn't be forced to buy a new verion to get bug fixes for an existing product that is being sold.

leebut
I hope the bug fixes will be available to x2a users who don't upgrade to X3. After all, we shouldn't be forced to buy a new verion to get bug fixes for an existing product that is being sold.

However... the existing product won't continue to be sold once the next is available, that's always been how it's worked.  Back-porting fixes can often be as big a task as actually making the fix itself due to underlying code changes.   It's probably why it rarely happens, anywhere...AFAIK.
 

stevec

leebut
I hope the bug fixes will be available to x2a users who don't upgrade to X3. After all, we shouldn't be forced to buy a new verion to get bug fixes for an existing product that is being sold.

However... the existing product won't continue to be sold once the next is available, that's always been how it's worked.  Back-porting fixes can often be as big a task as actually making the fix itself due to underlying code changes.   It's probably why it rarely happens, anywhere...AFAIK.
 

Most products that have a price tag in the hundreds of dollars have more than one patch per major product release.  I agree that it isn't so comment to issue a lot of patches after the next version ships, but most high priced products that have significant bugs do at least a couple of patch cycles each year.
 
It really isn't that hard if you design patch packaging into your development platform.  The release packaging should be essentially 100% scripted.  There is the issue of regression testing, but much of that can be automated these days too.  It is just a question of priorities.  It does take some resources away from development.  Many companies decide that maintaining customer loyalty is worth such an investment.

I would consider SONAR priced about average in DAW-land and cheap when compared to other software industries.  However, I'm not sure anyone could disagree that one official patch (and one quickfix) resembles the norm, for CW or otherwise.  I only hope this was an anamoly and that it doesn't become the norm.  Because even though X2a has been running very well for me, I realise it's not that way for everyone.
 
As far as back-porting being easier if the process is baked in (pun intended), not if the fix depends on other design changes that don't exist in the previous version.  I've seen that countless times over the last sixteen years where I work (large software company).   It's often not a one-to-one situation when comparing a bug fix in the current version vs. the previous release.    Of course, I have no idea how SONAR fits in to this, but seeing some of the changes from version to version I can imagine where this could be a factor.   I guess the only way to know for sure is to see how the next few months play out!
 
 

stevec
As far as back-porting being easier if the process is baked in (pun intended), not if the fix depends on other design changes that don't exist in the previous version. 

Yes.  I agree.  Fixes that depend on a significant improvement to the program's foundation or architecture do need to go with major releases (which might be free or purchased.)  That's a marketing decision.  For example, Microsoft is putting some of those foundational changes into Windows 8.1, but marketing realities said they had to make that available for free.  I understand those decisions going both ways.
 
But I would submit that the majority of bugs that irritate people are not dependent on foundations that aren't there.  They are just regular bugs that could be fixed in patch releases.  Really, it should be a relatively rare thing that something seem by the user base as a clear-cut bug is the result of a bad architecture.  When that happens, that indicates a poor job of systems analysis.  (I realize I date myself by using the term "system analysis", but that used to be a widely practiced discipline wherever software was developed.  Programmers rose to the level of analyst as they gained experience and the analyst was responsible to anticipate the dead ends in the architecture.  I doubt that most software shops have that kind of formal discipline anymore.)
 
I would stipulate that many of the enhancement ideas ("Gee I wish SONAR did a better job of XYZ ...") are the sorts of things you describe that could be dependent on foundations that are not present.  But vendors SHOULD charge for enhancements.  That's fair.  Charging for bug fixes -- not so much.

Yeah, I agree.  And that's exactly why I hope X3 will see more than one update!  
 
Going back and patching X2 is highly unlikely, and nothing I would ever put my hopes on.  Instead I'd see where CW goes with X3 and if the number of patches better matches up with pre-X2 releases.
 

stevec
And that's exactly why I hope X3 will see more than one update!  

Personally I'd like to see a 4- or 6-month patch cycle.  But I think most people could be reasonably happy with a 2-year purchased "X" level cycle and two free patch releases for each ""X" level.  That would put the patches roughly 8 months apart, which ought to be something that Cakewalk could manage without too much grief.
 

Ryan - thanks for your response. I know you guys in support and development are working
constantly to do the best job you can. My problem is just one of about 14,000 that have been
submitted in the last 2.5 years, and I'm aware of the difficulties that presents for you. Please
understand that for me, that one problem represented three months of work written off
because SONAR wouldn't record correctly. By the time I realized what was going on, the client
couldn't wait an extra month for me to do a recovery, so we lost 25% of our annual revenue
in the middle of the Great Recession. Everybody else can joke about it in this thread, but to
me it isn't at all funny. I put in a bug report and then found out it was already a known problem.
When I complained about the time that had gone by without scheduling a fix, I was told by
a person in support that it did absolutely no good to complain because "management" selected
the release packages. We just had to wait. Now you're telling me that's not the case. You're an
ombudsman and support participates and has influential input to the scoping process, and that
complaining is now a worthy exercise. OK. I'm officially complaining. I just wish it wasn't three
years too late.