can i ask whether its morally right to release any hardware device with faults ? i am confused as to why access are selling these synths with all these problems ? when korg and roland are not ? clavia nord ? bugs ? i owned 25 synths over 20 years and i never had so many problems as i have with the ti , the virus c didnt have these issues ? what went wrong as something did ?
what confuses me is why access arr selling these synths when they really on some level are not fit to sell and should be still in testing at the factory ? it sounds great but its just unstable and really this whole idea we pay £100o's to buy into this whole bug fix game needs to be questioned ? i cant think of another synth where i had to act as a beta testers for 4 years and still have issues ????????but best of all i pay for the priveledge .
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc
let me say something about the number of bug releases and public betas. we didn't do this all the time, in fact we never put out so many (small) updates. we found that collecting improvements into a few big releases might look better but at the same time, users have to wait longer for a bug fix which in many cases is counter productive. on top, with so many platforms (sequencers, OS versions, hardware) it's difficult to cover everything with an inhouse beta test. we, of course, do test but we invite our users to assist us. if someone tends more towards a "never touch a running system" attitude, there are non beta versions also.
i know that TI2 users had not have the chance to go back to version 2.7.5 and had to use the 3.0 public betas but now, since a release build is out, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.
best, marc
access music
|