It never ceases to amaze me how people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about feel the need to obnoxiously weigh in on discussions beyond their technical expertise and thus not only reinforce the fact that they don’t know anything about the topic at hand but also demonstrate that they are belligerent asses in the process.
But whatever. The most shocking thing about this UI train wreck is that any programmer straight out of “code camp” wouldn’t make this mistake. It doesn’t bode well for the future of Cubase when the Product Development team at Steinberg makes egregiously bad decisions of this sort.
I understand the design is flawed, it’s a bad design so IMO it’s worst than a bug. How can they “design” such a crappy window system when their job is software development? it’s like a professional piano player not knowing its scales.
Unfortunately it’s not only steinberg. We live in a world where companies don’t care about the quality of their products as much as they should, They only care about the money as long as there’s some customers to buy it. Their offices are full of managers that have no clue what they are doing, it’s all about the marketing, advertising and catching the customers.
This window system is not only flawed, but it has been advertised as an improvement on what existed in C7.5. The thing they promote is the biggest downside of their product. I really hope they will fix this.
I did ask, or is it too much for this uneducated chap, why it is so horribly dangerous? You are apparently in possession of this knowledge and I am not. Tell me why it is so egregious please do. That is what I asked. I said it was over my head. You are the guy “weighing in”. All I’m asking is “what do you mean?”
No explanation = no “train wreck”. Get it? Or are you saying that the Steinberg programmers are totally incompetent? If so. Then we, the “uneducated” “asses” as you called me need an explanation otherwise it’s just another pointless rant. I would not appreciate an answer saying that “I wouldn’t understand…” that also would = no “train wreck”.
Actually, not just you. There must be other experienced programmers reading this who could tell me just how big a “train wreck” this is. Pointer to a clear layman’s explanation would do. It’s a genuine request. Thanks all and a happy new year.
My apologies if I misread the tone of your previous post.
Regarding the “UI train wreck” that is the Mac-like, pseudo global menu bar and associated gray background “container,” this is problematic for multiple reasons:
It works differently from almost every other Windows program ever developed (at least the ones that actually follow Microsoft’s UI guidelines). In fact, I don’t think I have ever seen any program on any OS that places a menu bar in the title bar of the window. So right off the bat, Steinberg is using an utterly novel UI paradigm. This is never a good idea unless you are solving a usability problem that cannot be solved in any other way. But that is not the case at all. Almost every other program in existence manages multiple windows without resorting to its own proprietary windowing system.
Okay, so people can probably get used to the new, non-standard combined menu bar / title bar design (even though it looks horrible on Windows 7 unless you hack the Registry to turn off the Aero Glass “etching” effect in the title bar). But does this weird menu actually solve the problem it was intended to solve? Not really. Although it is now possible to open the Key Editor, for instance, on another monitor without extending your main Cubase window across both monitors, there is no reason why this could not be done using standard menu bars on both windows. Take a look at how Evernote and countless other programs allow you to open separate windows/documents on separate monitors. These programs do this in a straightforward manner that adheres to all existing Windows UI conventions.
Well, even if the new design is non-standard (which is probably not a good thing,) how bad is it really? Bad, really bad. The problem is that this new system conflicts with how Windows itself manages application windows thus leading to all kinds of window focus issues.
I suspect that Steinberg took this approach in a misguided attempt to rationalize their UI across the Mac and PC with the intention of saving development/documentation time and resources going forward. But as others have pointed out, being cheap and trying to make a PC work like a Mac is bound to fail and result in all sorts of compromises that users are now experiencing with Cubase 8. This is coming from someone who uses multiple Mac computers for almost everything except music production, btw.
Optimising for each OS would also allow us Windows users to have full 10-point touch without having to wait for OSX to catch up.
SB, please stop listening to the lame voices that seem to think OSX is the boss system, and that Windows should just be an also ran. Sack the managers and programmers who think that. Vive la différence!
Most likely it wasn’t the rank and file developers, but rather some obnoxious Mid-level Mac-weenie in Marketing who believes his/her thought process is superior to all. I suspect it will quickly be corrected with an 8.1 fix as was the same pompous mistake that was Windows 8.
Note to Marketing : If we wanted a Mac, we would already own one…
I’m not so sure this will be a quick fix. Steinberg needs to go back to the drawing board and fundamentally re-think not only its approach to window management on the PC but also its cross-platform strategy. First and foremost, the company needs to follow widely accepted/adopted Windows UI guidelines (and more broadly, basic usability standards and conventions). And if this necessitates somewhat different features in the Mac and PC versions of Cubase, then so be it. Company’s that truly care about user experience take this approach - they leverage what is best on each platform.
This thread has turned into somewhat of a train wreck! A lot of what is being said is subjective particularly around Windows UI standards. If you do not like the way that C8 works don’t use it. Use whatever version you do like as many do or change DAW.
As always, you are very unlikely to get anywhere with requesting changes unless you are very specific, report it in the correct way and Steinberg agree with you.
The OP made a couple of valid points both of which are already mentioned in the issues thread. Bugs are always a pain but I have yet to find an issue that was a show stopper on C8. But then you have interoperability with C7.5 and you can then wait until they produce an update for C8.
What about “If you do not like the way that C8 works don’t buy it” ? The thing is you can’t know if you like it or not until you buy it. And once you’ve bought it, you want to use it, Nobody wants to spend money on a software they don’t use. So the only source that tells you if you like it or not is the advertisement. So you expect the product to work as advertised. And if it’s not the case it’s fair to say so.
Many thanks. Now I know. I agree with pretty much all of that. I suspect that sometime Steinberg followed user’s (forum) demands for multi-screen displays and deep down did not fancy the idea at the time, but once you’ve set the sledge rolling downhill…
So if it conflicts with “How Windows itself manages application windows…” then it surely is an issue and so, as it seems that important maybe a detailed report in the Issues section would seem to be the best place for reporting it. You’re sort of in a limbo here in a sub-clause to this thread.
That’s the thing. There is nothing “subjective” about violating Microsoft’s UI standards or disregarding 30 years of user interface design best practices. This isn’t a “bug” either. Steinberg’s developers just made an objectively bad design decision. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t have any experience or knowledge of user interface design.
+1 for JClosed demo suggestion. Demos usually come out a little after initial release. I also suggest buying a little after one has sampled the demo. That way you usually find that early bugs have also been squashed in an update. The advertisement is “the only source…” if you haven’t been round the houses and done your research and waited for the demo (after checking there is a demo), reports and reviews. And can’t wait five minutes for the shiny new thing… (like me…)
Software work as advertised ? Ho ho ho to that. Generally the more expensive and complex the software the less chance of that. I don’t usually get the bad ones but I EXPECT early problems and don’t use studio software until I KNOW it works for me. If I don’t I have to call matron for my tablets.