Cubase 8 is (no longer) a pain to work with

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. :laughing:

Note to Marketing : If we wanted a Mac, we would already own one…

Not my experience!

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.

Then just run the demo? I know there is no demo yet, but it will be available in te short term.

You do not have to buy the update for Cubase 8 to test-run it. Just use the demo. If you don’t like it after trying, you do not buy it. Simple enough…

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.

Oh btw, I bought a copy of Studio One.

+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…) :mrgreen:
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.

That’s the main advice you can give to customers: don’t buy Cubase when it’s out! :laughing:

I’m sure Steinberg will pin it in their homepage :mrgreen:

It comes down to where the developer wants to go. Steinberg got Cubase 7.5 to what I would call a stable level. Most users will agree that C7.5 and C6.5 are the most stable modern versions of Cubase available. So from that point on do you tweak the functionality to further solidify your software and make it even better, or do you take a chance at “pro|volutionizing” your already solid platform and make it newer?

My complaints about Cubase are all shallow, and that’s because of the solid foundation of the core software (which could even be more stable but it’s good enough as is). So everything is really a bit of an annoyance/inconvenience.

Maybe/probably the Steinberg crew have been beta testing the new Windows OS, so who knows what changes are in store?

Hardly pro-active though, is it?

For anyone seriously bound to some software, thinking of whether to buy the next version or not is very short-sighted. One wants to try and influence where it is headed. Discussion, suggestions, and raising issues are ALL part of that.

If you’re “seriously bound to software…” then you will know what new versions are going to be like.
And there is a fine line between influencing where it is headed, discussion, suggestions and raising issues and just having a rant in cyberspace. Although a rant is ok for a day or so it quickly gets old after that. WE are not Steinberg devs so it’s pretty useless moaning to us if most of us don’t have that particular issue.
I’m seriously bound to Cubase. I’ve got C8 but run it in a studio? Expect it all to work? Come on! Tell me ONE version that worked flawlessly from day one with total silence in the forum.
I’d say that C7 and C8 are the least complained about Cubase releases. And as for the issues. I’ve probably seen only one or two of the scores of issues reported here mentioned anywhere else. And that’s where any serious issues would get noticed. Mind you, the General section is not the issues section. And what is the point of reporting an issue in a general complaint about EVERYTHING in the General section? Not trying to avoid reporting an issue to the right people are we?
Maybe we need a Niggles section. :mrgreen:

And “Hardly pro active…” What’s that supposed to mean? You get the demo. You report what isn’t working. You don’t buy the product until it works for you. Simple! That’s as pro active as it gets.
If one can’t wait to buy the shiny new thing and then you spot a speck of dust after a few days and complain, that’s just being hyperactive. :laughing:

:mrgreen: Exactly. I’m not an employee. If you don’t know that new software is choc full of problems then use what works. Otherwise you end up here for weeks wondering why you’re here in the first place.
Cubase is seriously hard work sometimes. If you don’t know that yet… the show is about to grind to a halt and instead of a hundred hit records you’ll just end up with a few thousand posts.
All us users try and do is reduce the hard work so we spend less time here chasing bugs and more time finding the bits (most of the bits actually) of Cubase that work for ourselves.

Or, as is the case here, you like the program enough to buy and use it yet want them to fix certain areas of the program.

On a little investigation concerning something else I noticed that hitting maximise overlays the title/menu bar and imposes then the Project name onto the title / menu bar.
My dim memory of dabbling in programming makes me think that this might be a function / feature of their particular programming app or compiler (and they usually follow, or used to, the rules). Looks to me like the title bar has been placed in the menu bar not the other way round but whether that’s relevant I’m not sure.
So whatever they’re doing, whether it’s proper or not, they’re doing it at least twice.