Topic: Continued fixes for 9.1. (Read 3371 times)

lalittle · « **on:** December 23, 2003, 07:16:46 am »

I know that it was said that fixes for 9.1 would continue, but there is an almost total dropoff in responses to the last 9.1 problem thread. I'm still getting some of the same problems that I've been getting for a while (the worst of which is the "Saving Tag Info" freezes.) Are these issues actually going to be followed up on?

There seems to be a real fever for "new new new" in this forum, but there are plenty of MC users who would much rather have an extremely solid version of 9.1 rather than a constant supply of new features and changes. MC is "generally" stable, and I've recommended it to people, but it's simply not "rock solid" yet, and now that all the attention is on version 10, it would seem that everybody has simply moved on rather than pushing 9.1 to a TOTALLY finished point.

Thanks,

Larry

JimH · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2003, 08:18:50 am »

Larry,
The problem you report is not shared by other users. At some point, we have to conclude that these types of problems are "unique" and related to hardware or software on the user's machine.

9.1 is quite stable in general. 26 reports in several weeks is almost nothing.

We will now fix only catastrophic problems in 9.1. There is a point of diminishing returns on any release where you spend excessive energy chasing tiny problems. In my opinion, we've reached that point. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but we are moving on.

I suggest starting a new thread on the problem you have. Maybe someone will have a new idea you can try.

Jim

lalittle · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:10:05 pm »

Quote from: JimH on December 23, 2003, 08:18:50 am

9.1 is quite stable in general. 26 reports in several weeks is almost nothing.

Not when you consider that by a vast majority, the "type" of people frequenting this forum are the type of people that honestly enjoy moving to the latest beta build you offer. I guarantee that if 10 wasn't out yet, you'd see a LOT more posts in the 9.1.xxx threads. The reason for the lack of 9.1 posts is that the version 10 thread has sucked them all up.

Quote

We will now fix only catastrophic problems in 9.1. There is a point of diminishing returns on any release where you spend excessive energy chasing tiny problems. In my opinion, we've reached that point. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but we are moving on.

You've just outlined what makes the difference between a "great" application and just a "good" one. 9.1.316 is a feature rich program, and while I would agree that it's "generally stable," it's most certainly not "rock solid" yet.

Have you actually looked into some of the issues reported in the 9.1.316 and iPod threads? I bet that if you did, you'd find that at least some of the bugs reported are entirely repeatable on your systems. Regardless of how "small" these issues might seem, a bug is a bug, and this can make the difference between staying with a program or trying a different one for many people. Sadly, I'm getting the impression that you simply aren't looking into some of these issues -- that you're waiting for more posts that simply aren't coming since most "forum users" are using version 10 now.

You're correct that I don't agree it's time to "move on" yet -- not when the current official version still has enough minor bugs to keep it from being a "great" program. What really bothers me, however, is just how quickly and how FAR 9.1 has been pushed to the back shelf now that 10 is out. I was always reassured by the fact that the fixes for MC came out so quickly -- this is one of the major reasons I recommended the program to other people. That reassurance, however, has largely been replaced by disappointment now that 10 has completely taken over the programming efforts.

Working on the next major build is the normal process of software design. This, however, should not cut so far into the active, visible support for the current version.

Larry

gpvillamil · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:27:57 pm »

I hear JimH's point, but lalittle also has a point. I have posted on this subject before, here and here.

We're currently stuck in a bit of a limbo - 9.1.316 is just about right in terms of functionality, but missing some of the optimizations in MC10. Whereas MC10 is missing some key functions from MC9, and not yet stable.

KingSparta · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:28:55 pm »

upgrade

LonWar · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:31:08 pm »

If his version of 9.1 is not stable, Why would he pay more money?? I think they need to fix the remaining problems in 9.1 first. Then maybe they will upgrade to 10 when there is more of a feature motivation. Right now 10 is 9.1 with fixes..

JimH · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:39:22 pm »

Larry,
Life is short. Upgrade. Don't upgrade. It's not life threatening either way.

There have been three more posts in the build 316 thread since you started this thread a month ago.

I don't mean to sound like I want you to go away or that I don't care, but I don't think I can satisfy you.

Jim

gpvillamil · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2004, 06:40:24 pm »

10 is 9.1 with fixes, and missing some functionality I'd grown to love - floating action window and recursive folder view in My Computer.

For the time being, I would prefer a stable 9.1 to anything in MC10.

The key thing that would get me to move to MC10 is a smartlist edit wizard.

KingSparta · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2004, 07:02:46 pm »

when i was looking for something i found this, and i thought it was funny because thats how i was feeling at the moment.

http://tragikcartoonz.com/pointlesshe.swf

http://tragikcartoonz.com/slamhead.swf

JimH · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2004, 07:07:12 pm »

Thanks. I needed that. $:-\$

lalittle · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2004, 07:57:54 pm »

I just thought you might be interested in an MC 9.1 user's opinion on this subject. Nobody claimed that it's "life threatenning" -- neither is wearing socks, but I'm sure a lot more comfortable when I do.

Quote

There have been three more posts in the build 316 thread since you started this thread a month ago.

This is a completely moot point given the situation. If MC 10 wasn't available, do you REALLY believe there wouldn't be a boatload of posts in the 9.1.136 thread?

The reason I haven't upgraded is that it seems like version 10 is still more buggy and less stable than version 9.1. When this changes, I will upgrade, but until then, I am simply not the type of person who enjoys upgrading just for the sake of upgrading -- I don't desire the upgrade "fix" that a lot of people seem to want (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this -- I'm just saying that I don't personally want it.)

That said, is the latest version of 10 (38 I believe) up to the 9.1.316 level yet? It seems from the posts that it still has some "deeper" bugs compared to 316.

Larry

JimH · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:41:15 pm »

Quote from: lalittle on January 19, 2004, 07:57:54 pm

I just thought you might be interested in an MC 9.1 user's opinion on this subject.

I'm always interested. Thanks.

LonWar · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2004, 09:07:34 pm »

Quote from: lalittle on January 19, 2004, 07:57:54 pm

I just thought you might be interested in an MC 9.1 user's opinion on this subject. Nobody claimed that it's "life threatenning" -- neither is wearing socks, but I'm sure a lot more comfortable when I do.

Quote
There have been three more posts in the build 316 thread since you started this thread a month ago.

This is a completely moot point given the situation. If MC 10 wasn't available, do you REALLY believe there wouldn't be a boatload of posts in the 9.1.136 thread?

The reason I haven't upgraded is that it seems like version 10 is still more buggy and less stable than version 9.1. When this changes, I will upgrade, but until then, I am simply not the type of person who enjoys upgrading just for the sake of upgrading -- I don't desire the upgrade "fix" that a lot of people seem to want (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this -- I'm just saying that I don't personally want it.)

That said, is the latest version of 10 (38 I believe) up to the 9.1.316 level yet? It seems from the posts that it still has some "deeper" bugs compared to 316.

Larry

I find that the current version 10 is the most stable and fastest to date...
At least that is what I am finding.

lalittle · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2004, 10:55:34 pm »

Quote

I find that the current version 10 is the most stable and fastest to date...
At least that is what I am finding.

We may indeed be hitting "that point" where upgrading to 10 makes sense for the "average" user who doesn't have the "upgrade fever." Looking over the latest thread for version 10, however, it still seems like there are more consistant changes and deeper "issues" with some of the standard functionality -- i.e. it looks like they're still playing with the core of the program rather than "fine tuning" it.

JimH -- it was not my intention to pick on you or MC in general. I am simply a bit troubled for the reasons I stated, and with all the attention 10 is getting, I thought it was important to point this out. I don't want you to feel like you're banging your head against a wall, however.

Larry

RhinoBanga · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2004, 12:52:34 am »

Quote from: lalittle on January 19, 2004, 10:55:34 pm

Quote
I find that the current version 10 is the most stable and fastest to date...
At least that is what I am finding.

We may indeed be hitting "that point" where upgrading to 10 makes sense for the "average" user who doesn't have the "upgrade fever." Looking over the latest thread for version 10, however, it still seems like there are more consistant changes and deeper "issues" with some of the standard functionality -- i.e. it looks like they're still playing with the core of the program rather than "fine tuning" it.

If you want any fix now then you have to upgrade to v10 ... case point the recent "Cannot create plugin" bug which caused MC to crash when people inserted a CD. People experienced it with v9.1.316 but it was only fixed in v10.

Unfortunately since v10 is not production that bug will be sitting around for potential users to experience when trying out the production version of MC for a year if the usual J River development cycle applies.

And the real killer for existing users is that since there's no statement as to what v10 will actually contain then there's no guarentee that your favourite feature will not be changed/altered in such a way to make v10 unusable for you in the future.

jleerigby · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2004, 07:40:45 am »

There's a trade off with everything. We just have to accept that this is the way it is with MC - this is how their development cycle works and I for one am very glad about that.

They choose to put their development effort into new features rather than constantly try to chase the never ending task of fixing bugs. This is what helps to set MC apart from the rest and why it is so feature rich and powerful compared anything else out there.

If you want a very stable, almost entirely bug-free application go elsewhere and accept the lack of power, bland features and poor usability. Of course you won't do this! You are here and using MC because you like it. In which case accept it as it is. You can't have your cake and eat it!

Well done to the JRiver team for having the courage to stick with the winning formula that's got it where it is today. Credit where credit is due!

nila · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:24:58 am »

The bug fixes from 9 could still be fixed without effecting this.

All it would take is the updated code for the small section where the bug was found to be put into the v9 code and for it to be recompiled.

The time and effort comes from tracking and fixing the bug for v10. Once it's found and fixed in v10 which is more or less the same code base, it could easily be put into v9 too without too much hassle.

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:37:51 am »

Catastrophic bugs will be fixed in 9.1 if they are found. Others will not.

Fixing even the tiniest bug can have side effects.

9.1 is quite stable. We're not going to touch it unless we have to.

modelmaker · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:41:46 am »

I thiink Nila has a valid point. And JLee, one doesn't have to look elsewhere, MC 9.0 is stable as a rock and pretty darn powerfull.

jleerigby · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2004, 01:07:12 pm »

Quote from: modelmaker on January 20, 2004, 08:41:46 am

I thiink Nila has a valid point. And JLee, one doesn't have to look elsewhere, MC 9.0 is stable as a rock and pretty darn powerfull.

There you go then. 9.1 doesn't do it for you because one of the non-catastrophic bugs displeases you. So you can go for 9.0 or take a chance on 10.0. Not everyone will be happy but 9.1 had to end somewhere.

If I were you I'd invest in 10.0. If it were so buggy to affect my enjoyment I'd have uninstalled it weeks ago - but it isn't.

jleerigby · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2004, 01:13:31 pm »

Quote from: Nila on January 20, 2004, 08:24:58 am

The bug fixes from 9 could still be fixed without effecting this.

All it would take is the updated code for the small section where the bug was found to be put into the v9 code and for it to be recompiled.

The time and effort comes from tracking and fixing the bug for v10. Once it's found and fixed in v10 which is more or less the same code base, it could easily be put into v9 too without too much hassle.

Nila - I agree with JimH on this. Even the smallest of changes can cause problems. I have first hand experience of this many times. I work as a systems analyst / I.T. project manager for a for a large global company and am constantly working on pilot and roll of new code releases (I'm sure I'm not alone in this on this forum). You can't imagine the number of times a 'small change' that has been rattle tested (but not comprehensively tested) has come back to bite me on the ***. Attempts to fix the problem with another 'small release' just end up creating a snowball effect and you wish you hadn't bothered.

LisaRCT · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2004, 05:08:29 pm »

Hey pear . . .you don't have a nose

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Continued fixes for 9.1. (Read 3371 times)

jleerigby

nila

jleerigby

jleerigby

LisaRCT