Poll: frequent "hot fixes"or quarterly updates?

Frequent “hot fixes” or quarterly updates?

  • I’d prefer frequent hot fixes as the become available.
  • I’d prefer quarterly updates.

0 voters

Many software houses release frequent “hot fixes” to address ongoing software issues, sometimes on a weekly basis.

Would you prefer Steinberg to adopt a regular “hot fix” policy or are you content to wait, some times for a number of months to receive numerous fixes in one download?

Of course, sometimes, one fix can influence other areas of the software concerned so may not be appropriate.

Please answer yes or no with brief statements rather than rambling posts that may drift off topic.

Hard to give a simple yes or no. I’d love more frequent fixes, but I’d want to know they were properly-tested first!

If I have to pick, I’d say “Yes,” but only if rolling back from a messed-up update were possible.

i have a better idea how about debugging major functionality issues BEFORE releasing it instead of ripping people off buying beta software? then fixes to address the “not so important” issues like cosmetics etc. this is a joke… pro software? for who? the dj in moms basement? DJ-Wannabe just like this app a “wannabe DAW”

Why not both? Hotfixes for serious errors which need addressing ASAP, and regular updates which will add ongoing development together with lower priority fixes. Hotfixes would usually be integrated into the regular updates.
That’s the model our software vendors use where I work - of course their customer base has a lot more clout.

IMO… The quicker fixes are preferred. Daily, if possible. NOT KIDDING!

Regards :sunglasses:

I’ve been a Cubase user since Atari dayz (1992~) I wish Steinberg released software updates more frequently. Right now I shouldn’t complain, I’ve upgraded to Cubase Pro 8 on Jan 2 2015, six days later there’s an update!
I was surprised how many issues where in 8.0.

DAWs are probably the most complex pieces of software in the hands of prosumers. A downside of that is that it requires substantial regression test suites to ensure old functionality is not broken.

The more complex the software, the more time it takes to run that suite, limiting the rate of updates. Also, new functionality requires adding new tests to the suite.

Of course, any business that relies on critical third-party software should also have their own regression test suite to ensure new releases are compatible with their templates, files, and utilities.

At this stage, it looks like SB has problems even maintaining an up-to-date regression suite (judging by widespread broken existing functionality with each new release), so I would not have a lot of trust in the reliability of substantially more frequent Cubase updates.