What's the most time consuming part to updating software?

Excuse me if my questions/statement sounds stupid but this is coming from someone who knows nothng about programming. I'm just curious as to why updates take so long, it seems like they could update software every couple of months. I look at the Reaper software and they update it 2 or 3 times every 2 months, and we're always included in the beta process. Couldn't the NI updates be implemented a little faster or am I missing something?

 

The torrid pace of Reaper updates is an anomaly, a veritable freak of (software) nature! And it's done by three dudes (3 pretty damn smart dudes). This is definitely not the "norm" and very difficult to compare to.

 

to be honest I would rather have updates twice a year or so, the updates that windows does and takes over my computer are ridiculous I never even see changes after updates and I think some might be a little disappointed in the lack of changes with such frequent updates, then you would have the potential bugs all the time causing people to complain as well

 

You're missing something. NI's dealing with three plugin formats and two platforms, all of which follow different rules. And, you have a much larger user base to contend with.

ew

 

Reaper is it, that's the only program they work on. Granted they update a lot, and that's cool, but it's definitely not the norm. Also, a lot of the updates are bugfixes.

NI has quite a few products to maintain, plus we (the users) are VERY picky

I have no problem waiting, though I'd love to be involved in the beta lol.

 

Wouldn't NI have different teams for different products? I know cakewalk did, atleast that's what I was told by one of the programmers during the development of Project5 version 2.
Cakewalk/Roland really dropped the ball when they dropped Project5, it had so much potential.

 

not sure, but they still have to operate as a "whole" so priorities are given and even if there are different teams, they still have their schedules to follow.

I'm sure there are multiple teams and probably some overlap between different teams.

Project5 was cool....I still like live's session view better

 

Ableton sucks for updating...you have to download a 1.5 gig update every time and then transfer all your settings manually....bs!

 

I don't have to transfer all my settings every time. At least not on the Mac.

 

I don't on PC either :~

ew

 

I'm on OSX - I meant when you save things like presets for ableton fx and synths. Perhaps i'm doing it wrong. How do you do it?

 

I've never had an issue updating?

 

Hi jonespnice,


software programming, designing or product updates are not so easy, that it sometimes look like. Because every change on the code have to be tested, by unit tests, code review or black box testing. Thats what i got


It depends on the company philosophy, if the company (her NI) wants to publish good programmed and well tested software components and in the end a good well tested software update to his customers. They have to release only software that is stable and user conform.

Programming and especially testing can be very time-consuming for a software.
And a good communication with the community to add new features, that have also to be programmed and tested. NI advanced her software for his customer, i like this because they never stand still.

That are my impression from the company where i work for, they building software for clinical trial like workflow systems and iam doing some code review, black box and unit testing. I think NI does a great job .

Or like ID says: It's done, when it's done.

 

It depends on a few factors. The size of the teams, their internal process, the complexity of the software/hardware and number of platforms targeted.

Sometimes having a smaller development team can actually lead to faster turn around because there are less people involved, and it's quicker to implement/test changes.

Even if Maschine had it's own dedicated team that were not working on other projects for development, possibly the QA testers work on more than 1 project.

Where I work, we usually have developers split into smaller teams - 1 team working on a specific project / enhancement / application. But the QA team does testing on all the applications - and now and then the QA cycle can be the bottle neck.

I

 

That makes sense, I'm not a programmer so I'm a little ignorant in these matters. Thanks for explaining it.
---

Yeah I can understand that but it would be nice if they let some of us users beta test before the public beta testing, maybe that might speed it up a few weeks.
I just see it taking a bunch of updates before maschine reaches it's potential as I see it, with the additions of:
time stretching
import of formats (battery, mpc, sound fonts, kontakt, mp3, ect)
built in synth (maybe the pro53 sound engine) with the ability to route and combine synths together in a modular way to be able to create a bigger synth if so desired.
built in drum synth
a bigger/better modulation matrix
a mono or stereo out for each pad
multicore support
ability to host vsts
automatic tempo detect
Arpegiator


I know this is a lot of stuff but that's what I see as maschine's potential.

 

basic economics plays a part too. all these updates are free so NI is receiving nothing for all the man hours of extra work - other than from the £500 or whatever that we all paid initially.

NI is not obliged to add any free extra features to maschine - we all bought it for what it was at version 1.0 - i think the fact that they are really delivering is a sign of how successful the unit has been, and of course the potential for future sales by making it even better.

 

Yes I can understand that, but I would be willing to pay for updates. But besides that I think it earns them revenue it the terms of new customers buying it, you hear guys on other forums saying maschine doesn't do this or do that so I think with the right updates NI could sway other customers (guru,BPM, MPC, MV-8800, ect).