this is the longest I remember waiting for a Sonar update (we had 4 updates at this point relative to the release of X1)

 
You're right of course - but this does also stem from the fact the the X1 release was significantly less mature than the X2 release, even my system didn't become anything like stable until X1c - I was working in 8.5.3 until the c release - working with X1a & b almost had me in tears of frustration when trying to do some very simple tasks.
 
X2, for an awful lot of users, has simply worked right out of the box [download] and this is because X2 is a refinement and augmentation of the existing X1 code, whereas a lot of X1 was freshly written and not tested with the user base.

Bristol_Jonesey
 
You're right of course - but this does also stem from the fact the the X1 release was significantly less mature than the X2 release, even my system didn't become anything like stable until X1c - I was working in 8.5.3 until the c release - working with X1a & b almost had me in tears of frustration when trying to do some very simple tasks.
 
X2, for an awful lot of users, has simply worked right out of the box [download] and this is because X2 is a refinement and augmentation of the existing X1 code, whereas a lot of X1 was freshly written and not tested with the user base.

Agreed. X1 was much less solid than X2 upon initial release. I didn't use it regularly till X1c either. I'm not among the crowd who refers to X2 as unusable. I use it every day and happily so. I'm just itching for the kinks to get ironed out.

Mr. Munnis maybe try to remind others that Cakewalk isn't some gigantic corporation and that there are real human beings behind the scenes working long hours to make what we believe to be one of the best products on the market for an extremely fair cost.

+1

Chuckebaby I wish everyone here happiness and joy.

+1
 
I would add that my purpose for participating in the forum isn't just to get personal fixes. I put my oar in and try to help some folks so I can rub elbows with the serious talent in town. I'm grateful for all I've learned here, both when I was actively trying to solve my own problem or when I was trying to solve someone else's problem.

As a complete newcomer to Sonar, I've been uneasy when I hear about bugs that have been present for years.  I've also noticed a total lack of acknowledgement about the existence of theses bugs by Cakewalk representatives  (the latest batch of threads like this one are proof of this).
 
I love this forum, I think I like Sonar's functionality (but I'm still low in the learning curve and fear hitting issues when I get around to doing serious work), but I don't understand a software company that doesn't get around to fixing obvious bugs even years later.  I've worked in software development and I'd want to clean things up once in a while before going forward.  Either fix the bug or cut out the function.

Paul unless the poster lists exactly what bug/s they are talking about the notion that bugs have been in Sonar and are still there is not creditable. Keep in mind that X1 and X2 were rewritten. 
 
For example take lanes v layers many view the differences as bugs.
 
Its easy to toss out unproved allegations and get away with it. I'm not saying that X2 is bug free. I am saying that a lot of what is said is either exaggerated or is knowingly wrong.  
 
Believe it or not there are people with a very nasty agenda. 

Paul..don't confuse the refusal to respond to strawman type arguments with lack of acknowledgement. Many of the complaints are not so much about bugs but the inevitable differences that occur from everyone having different configurations and skill levels. Then there's the badgering they recieve when they do respond. Imagine volunteering to man a 24 hour complaint line for a company when it's not your job and being told you don't care because you are not subjecting yourself to enough abuse? No matter how Ryan answers either the op will come back with a rebuttal and/or a line of others will gang up on him with more and sometimes unrelated issues.

I appreciate the input from the "company people." I'm a user of Cakewalk software from the last century (literally), and now that it's finally time for me to upgrade my system, it is personal interaction like Ryan's and others' that help reaffirm my decision to stay with Cakewalk. Being a new guy here, imagine my surprise when the CTO himself responded to my question about software optimization.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I just want to say thanks to the Cakewalk people for their personal interaction on this forum. It's not like I can just call tech support or product development just to say "thanks for being there!" So I'll just say it here. Thanks guys.
 
rock on.

John
What bothers me is that CW has to deal with those that seem to want to shut down CW. Yet true requests for real improvements have to get sidetracked just to answer the ones that have a nasty agenda. 
 
How much effort is being spent to track down the ones that want to hurt CW? 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all John - it doesn't make any sense.
 
Why would anyone, who lays out hundreds of dollars/pounds for a software product, then want to "hurt" the company that made it, or want them to "shut down"?
 
Unless, of course (and this is the 400lb gorilla in the room) they are dissatisfied with the product, and/or they get the feeling that nothing is being done to address their issues.
 
Who are these people? I've seen quite a few guys expressing genuine concerns about SONAR, but they're not criticising Cakewalk and their products on a whim. Or for a bit of mindless fun, if you will.
 
If, as has already been mentioned, they have not followed the correct/official procedure for reporting bugs and/or contacting technical support, then they should receive little sympathy. But most of the people who have been critical have followed these procedures - to the letter. They end up being so frustrated when they perceive that nothing is being done (or can be done, short of an update) that I believe their venting is justified to some extent.
 
Sure, if there are spies in the camp from other DAWs who are deliberately spreading malicious falsehoods then yes, weed them out and send them packing. But I know for a fact there are a couple of guys - one specifically who got banned for what he said in a Private Message (some "Privacy" eh?) - who all they ever wanted was for the software they paid for to work for them.
 
 
 

John
I must say I am depressed to hear that anyone would PM to advise people to switch DAWs. 
 
We don't need the membership to become actively involved in policing the forum but I think we do need to be a little more on guard. 

 
I thought Private Messages were er..... 'Private'?
 
And yes, I fully realise that the PM system is a privilege of this forum - but what next, is somebody going to get banned because someone reports the contents of an email they get sent?
 
That's a slippery slope for sure.
 
 

This is directed at nobody in particular, whatsoever.
 
I would like to see the level of energy taken to post so much negativity and nonsense in some of the posts that are out there channeled into HELPING folks - helping each other.
 
WE are our best and most available resource for learning to work with the software, and balancing all of the pieces of hardware and other software that goes with it.
 
Please, let's collectively be adults, and interact in a civil and supportive manner, toward the common goal of using whatever tools we individually have to make/produce music.
 
Bob Bone
 
 

What I don't get is people who haven't used Sonar for years popping up here and talking about their new DAW and how they wish they had switched years ago. Everyone knows who I'm talking about- the Logic guy, the Studio One guys , the Cubase guys. It's tragic.