I would also appreciate it if they did considerably more QA before releasing their products.
As far as performance goes, they’ve made a major improvement on low latency performance, but is there room for similar improvement at higher buffer settings via improved multicore/hyperthreading or anything along those lines?
Also pertaining to performance, I would like to see a fully integrated way to use a second computer as a DSP via a LAN connection.
Score editor improvements > Gui refinement (I don’t want it dockable) > other workflow improvements > performance.
Apart from with the score editor, there are no bugs that affect me. I don’t care about media content, and I rarely use any Steinberg VST/VSTi. I’m very impressed with the level of refinement of C8. For me it just works.
I have nothing against docking as such, but I haven’t seen a dockable interface on a DAW that I would find useful. I like working with maximised editors/mixer.
-1 = Docking is actually one of the main reasons I switched from another well-known DAW to Cubase - it wastes an incredible amount of space, and you lose much of that see-my-entire-arrangement-in-a-glance ability.
+1 = Anything that elevates/innovates automation (for e.g., an ‘automation editor’, similar to those for sample, key, score, etc). Sample accuracy would be nice.
Fortunately true docking is inherently optional. You have a boat (window) that is sailing free out on the open ocean and then are ABLE to DOCK if you wish to.
I’m with Greg Houston. Bug fixes ( failing this then everyone should get paid for being beta testers on newly released software) and fully dockable interface.
Like Greg says just because it’s all dockable doesn’t mean it has to be all glued together. I’ve got plenty of software that has dockable interfaces and you get the best of both worlds.
I’ve got one piece of software that is so adjustable it brings a happy tear to my eye. Steinberg do seem to be stuck in the stone age when it comes to interface customisation. I’d be embarrassed myself.
Why is this point so hard for a lot of people to understand? No dockable interface forces you to dock the windows! Hopefully Steinberg will listen to people who actually understand this seemingly obvious point the next time they revamp the window management system.
Maybe it would help if the windows are NOT docked by default just to reinforce this point.
Why do you assume that some people don’t understand what dockable means?
Anyway, I prefer the C8 window management to that of Studio One. In C8, each window has greater independence, and can be accessed using alt+tab. In S1, just like in C7, I can’t switch between maximised windows using keyboard shortcuts. The mixer shortcut F3 for example, closes an open mixer that may be in the background, and when pressed again reopens it, with an annoying flicker. This drove me mad with C7 and Studio One.
In C8, I can jump between the windows and other apps such as VST host and external video players as though it’s all just one big program. I prefer working this way.
I think you just answered your own question. Whether the interface is dockable or not has nothing to do with how key commands are used to switch between open windows/layers. Again, as your comments indicate, a lot of people apparently do not understand what “dockable” means. Think of it as “snap into place” if that helps.
In a dockable interface, sections of the interface (i.e., windows) can be arranged in a logical, useful framework/layout if the user chooses to use this feature. Key commands can still be used to access various docked/grouped layers of the program. And windows can be made “independent” (and even overlap if you want them to for whatever reason). There is basically no downside other than the fact that there may be constraints as to what interface element can be placed in what “box” in the layout. But that’s just a matter of practicality and not an inherent, conceptual limitation with “docking.” For instance, there would typically be no reason to try to cram the mixer window into a right panel section of the interface. And so this would typically not be a layout option.
The best of both worlds is docking and configurable “workspaces.” Steinberg had the opportunity to leapfrog the competition in this regard and pretty much blew it. It’s too bad.
Where did I give the impression that I don’t understand what dockable means?
I posted on my preference for the C8 interface over Studio One. I didn’t even mention docking as a disadvantage. As an experienced programmer, I assure you I know exactly what docking means.
Well, when you talk about things (key command access to windows) that have nothing to do with a docked interface, one naturally assumes that you don’t understand what docking means.
When I talk about things that have nothing to do with a docked interface, one naturally assumes I don’t understand what docking means?
I mentioned why I prefer C8’s window management to Studio One’s. As I said before, docking has NOTHING to do with it. I wasn’t even talking about docking, so naturally I mentioned things that have nothing to do with a docked interface.
You then made irrelevant comments about key commands in Cubase vs. Studio One
So you either didn’t understand what I was talking about or you quoted me unnecessarily (because nothing you said had anything to do with the topic I was discussing).
Hey - lighten up, ok? - I get it, I’ve actually used, for many years, a DAW that is fully dock-able. I just don’t like it. There are still real estate compromises involved in a dock-able environment (yes, even when nothing is docked) as well stability issues(ie., glitches/overloads docking during playback, recording, etc.).
Whether the interface is dockable or not has nothing to do with how key commands are used to switch between open windows/layers. Again, as your comments indicate, a lot of people apparently do not understand what “dockable” means. Think of it as “snap into place” if that helps.