| This thread is laughable. Being that there are so many combinations of possible ....
1. Computers models (motherboards, chips, etc.)
2. Audio Hardware
3. Midi Hardware
4. Freeware Plugins
5. And the numerous other things that might find themselves on a native system.
It's no wonder that you might find many bug reports on a mfg's forum. Here's an example of a bug report from the SX forum.
NO JOKE: Some users think it is a "bug" in SX because when you insert an audio track in SX the track assignments change on a Mackie control! They think that if track 2 in SX is a BASS and you insert a new track in front of that in SX, that the software should remember that the BASS was on track 2 and dynamically reassign the hardware driver so that the Mackie control's fader 2 now controls track 3 in SX. These are "engineers" who can't properly manage a session, they want Steiny to do it all for them.
I personally find it annoying that if you want to do OMF files in PT you gotta pay $500 for the software to do it. I think this is a "bug" in Digi's thinking.
Bottom line? Samp and SX and PT and (insert your over $300 daw here) are all stable daws if the the operator / system builder takes care in putting together a pro system. If you don't believe that you're living in a dream world. I use SX daily and it has never crashed or failed to perform as advertised. I love it. Samp would do the same if I chose to use it because I'd do my homework/maintenance and keep my system stable.
If one minor feature "bugged" on my system and worked fine for others I'd more likely attribute it to my system configuration and look for the cause there. Then again, no software or human programmer is perfect.
I can't believe people still debate things like this. While people are on the NET telling other people how daw "X" is crap, there are thousands of others making records on it without problems.
I wonder why?
Lawrence |