Cubase SX: Dongle vs. cracked version
Mobomanly
version as a demo and been wondering if there is somebody that has tried both
and can compare the bugs. I've heard SX is quite buggy, so I wonder if the bugs
I have encountered are real bugs or results from a poor crack. For instance,
sometimes when I loop using the L-R, the song will lose sync with the graphic
wave or stop altogether. This and other little quirks. Sometimes the same midi
notes will be doubled in the midi editor as well.
Thanks.
Funkybot
eventually getting around to fixing at least some of them.
dman
For the most part, SX is rock solid. There are a few minor bugs that
is going to be solved with the 1.02 update.
The audio part of SX is miles better than VST 5.x. The midi part
however is at the moment less than perfect. Some important features
(from VST 5.x) are missing, but Steinberg is working hard and has
promised to implement these features ASAP.
There's a list of known bugs and missing features published in the
cubase.net "SX Developer connection" forum.
A cracked version is never a good place to weed out bugs ;o)
dman
R.V. Gronoff
"Funkybot" <funk...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20020710204955...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> Well even if they are Stienberg bugs, if you buy it, chances are Stienberg
will
> eventually getting around to fixing at least some of them.
No: as usual, Steinberg will write a brand new payable version "so much in
advance on its time" that the new bugs will be worse than the current ones.
It's always been their policy, why would it change now ? Remember Netscape.
It's the same story.
I'll stick with Cubase 5, which is relatively stable (according to Steinbugs
standards) and has at least a classical Cubase interface that older users
are at ease with.
Hull Blackwell
Hi dman,
> A cracked version is never a good place to weed out bugs ;o)
not true, that is the main reason of being for the whole cracked software
scene.
why buy bug ridden versions, when you can wait till the bugs are fixed!
then buy it!
regards
Hull
:^)
dman
wrote:
How can you tell which bugs are crack related from the "legitimate"
bugs? Call Steinberg?
Call me naive, but I don't think bugfixing is the main reason for the
whole cracked software scene. They would be a lot better of getting
paid for it by working for the software companies.
Have you ever experienced a piece of software were all the bugs have
been fixed? How long did you have to wait?
Chances are that they would go belly up long before that since
everybody's using the cracked versions waiting for the bugs to be
fixed.
dman
(Yes, my eyes are blue :o) but I can still see)
Laurence Payne
>> Well even if they are Stienberg bugs, if you buy it, chances are Stienberg
>will
>> eventually getting around to fixing at least some of them.
>
>No: as usual, Steinberg will write a brand new payable version "so much in
>advance on its time" that the new bugs will be worse than the current ones.
>It's always been their policy, why would it change now ? Remember Netscape.
>It's the same story.
>
>I'll stick with Cubase 5, which is relatively stable (according to Steinbugs
>standards) and has at least a classical Cubase interface that older users
>are at ease with.
Well, make your mind up! Either Steinberg debugged Cubase 5
adequately, or they didn't. You can't have it both ways!
--
My Cubase FAQ page is
www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
Feedback welcome.
Laurence Payne
release so that they can at last scuttle down to the shop, money in
hand.... :-)
--
R.V. Gronoff
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurenceDELETETHISpayne.freeserve.co.uk> a écrit dans
le message de news: rt8riucs4qql5eb61...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Well even if they are Stienberg bugs, if you buy it, chances are
Stienberg
> >will
> >> eventually getting around to fixing at least some of them.
> >
> >No: as usual, Steinberg will write a brand new payable version "so much
in
> >advance on its time" that the new bugs will be worse than the current
ones.
> >It's always been their policy, why would it change now ? Remember
Netscape.
> >It's the same story.
> >
> >I'll stick with Cubase 5, which is relatively stable (according to
Steinbugs
> >standards) and has at least a classical Cubase interface that older users
> >are at ease with.
>
> Well, make your mind up! Either Steinberg debugged Cubase 5
> adequately, or they didn't. You can't have it both ways!
> --
Just try to insert a "demi-soupir" in a score...
R.V. Gronoff
Windows and I've spent my last five years regretting it.
The only music software I'm happy to pay for is Band in a Box: reliable,
comes with tons of extras (like hundreds of style files, sofsynth, MIDI to
CD recorder, etc. and at a very affordable price.
As I said: I'm using a cracked version of Cub 5 because I'll never use the
extra "super-kolossale" boche technology it offers (I'm just a MIDI
composer), but because I want an equivalent of my crappy, full-paid, v3.7
that will work on a WinXP machine.
And I'm still unable to insert a silence in a bar without moving all the
other notes !!! Arrrgh !
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurenceDELETETHISpayne.freeserve.co.uk> a écrit dans
le message de news: 1f9riusus5aequd3v...@4ax.com...
Laurence Payne
using cracks.
Why not use cracked 3.72? That runs on XP.
I think any sequencer that allows insertion will move subsequent
events up. Think substitution, not insertion. If you've got a
crotchet that should be a quaver and quaver rest, shorten the
crotchet. You need to understand the display quantise settings too.
>As I said: I'm using a cracked version of Cub 5 because I'll never use the
>extra "super-kolossale" boche technology it offers (I'm just a MIDI
>composer), but because I want an equivalent of my crappy, full-paid, v3.7
>that will work on a WinXP machine.
>
>And I'm still unable to insert a silence in a bar without moving all the
>other notes !!! Arrrgh !
--
Laurence Payne
A quaver, or eighth-note rest, right?
Does this make Cubase fall over? Which version?
Do you use the score layout features a lot? I edit extensively in
score view but have never taken Cubase seriously as a score dtp
program.
>>
>> Well, make your mind up! Either Steinberg debugged Cubase 5
>> adequately, or they didn't. You can't have it both ways!
>> --
>
>Just try to insert a "demi-soupir" in a score...
--
R.V. Gronoff
> Had to look that one up :-)
> A quaver, or eighth-note rest, right?
> Does this make Cubase fall over? Which version?
>
No, not at all: it just pushes all the following notes to the right, the
value of the rest... :o(
> Do you use the score layout features a lot?
Yes, since I basically write music using the step editing function.
> I edit extensively in
> score view but have never taken Cubase seriously as a score dtp
> program.
>
Neither have I: it's just too difficult to get a decent drumscore printout.
My problem may come from a wrong resolution setting of the score display.
For example, if I type a dotted "black" (1 time note) on the first time then
another note on the second time, I can expect a half-time rest at the middle
of the second time. But actually the score editor will just display a
"white" (two times note) and the following note with no rest between.
R.V. Gronoff
> Oh, did you say that? I missed the bit where you admitted you were
> using cracks.
>
> Why not use cracked 3.72? That runs on XP.
>
Possibly, but it seems to have vanished in the morning breeze. I've checked
on Kazaalite with no result. Earliest version is 5.0.
R Carrington
All the bugs and quirks have been fixed. :)
"Mobomanly" <mobo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020709004617...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Hull Blackwell
Hi Laurence Payne,
> A lovely picture! All those warez users eagerly awaiting the perfect
> release so that they can at last scuttle down to the shop, money in
> hand.... :-)
hey we are talking Major bugs...... not perfect ;^)
although if any software company could try that it would be a bonus! :^)
regards
Hull
:^)
Hull Blackwell
Hi dman,
> How can you tell which bugs are crack related from the "legitimate"
> bugs? Call Steinberg?
A/B them, someone is always willing to do that.
> Call me naive, but I don't think bugfixing is the main reason for the
> whole cracked software scene. They would be a lot better of getting
> paid for it by working for the software companies.
no I didnt say that! bugweeding was the term I agreed with! although
some crackers do fix bugs in software it not the norm.
some crackers are indeed looking for work, & are employed by
the leading software companies.
others purely do it for the Free for all idea.
> Have you ever experienced a piece of software were all the bugs have
> been fixed? How long did you have to wait?
yes I have maybe ounce or twice, but that is no excuse for companys
to have put out versions that are flawed from the start.
> Chances are that they would go belly up long before that since
> everybody's using the cracked versions waiting for the bugs to be
> fixed.
thats life! if you can not get rid of major bugs in your software, then
you deserve all thats coming to you.
regards
Hull
:^)
Toninho
> thats life! if you can not get rid of major bugs in your software, then
> you deserve all thats coming to you.
Now you talkin' brother !
Laurence Payne
I pay well. But be careful. You make one mistake, you get nothing.
That OK by you?
>
>> thats life! if you can not get rid of major bugs in your software, then
>> you deserve all thats coming to you.
>
>Now you talkin' brother !
>
--
Aphelion
Yep, the oldest and lamest excuse concocted by warez users to justify
their actions.
Everyone that uses the sofware knows that for it's complexity... both
5.1 and SX are remarkably stable.
Ap
Hull Blackwell
Hi Laurence Payne,
> Will you come and work for me?
> I pay well. But be careful. You make one mistake, you get nothing.
> That OK by you?
>
> >
> >> thats life! if you can not get rid of major bugs in your software,
then
> >> you deserve all thats coming to you.
did you not see where it says 'major bugs' ? ;^) so if I work for
you & burn down your
store or Kill an employee then I would deserve nothing rite? ;^)
Just about every program & utilities out there has bugs, & its completely
irrational to expect
every bug to be gone, its part of the whole computer experience,
but if a company continues to put out bug ridden software that threatens the
state of your
computer system then that company deserves to go down.
thankfully Steinberg have gone from being company that puts out bug ridden
programs,
to one that updates & fixes bugs, I would say they learnt a lot from
creating Nuendo.
regards
Hull
:^)
Hull Blackwell
Hi Aphelion,
> Yep, the oldest and lamest excuse concocted by warez users to justify
> their actions.
>
> Everyone that uses the sofware knows that for it's complexity... both
> 5.1 and SX are remarkably stable.
I could not agree more, what I said was directed at all software
companys
that make bug ridden software.
Steinberg is not one of these, thank god! ;^) ( although at one time I
would have to say
they would have had to be included)
regards
Hull
:^)
Aphelion
wrote:
>
True... they have improved tremendously over the last few years.
regards...
Ap
David Wargert
The cracked version of 3.72 i shit...In case you wanna know...however I
havn't compared it to the retail version ;-)
David Wargert
I've also tested the cracked SX and the biggest problem I've encountered
is in the midi editor window I can't seem to move the notes using my
mouse. I get some kind of error message. I have to use the move to
cursor command.
Back on the debate about cracked software. I'm not saying that I'm for
warez but there is an issue that should be considered. Ya know,
everything isn't in black and white!!!
I've just finished school. I havn't had money to buy any software over
the years. Still I've been using programs like photoshop, corel draw,
quark etc. The companys havn't lost anything on this...they've gained.
Let me explain:
First of all, I would never been able to afford the software (then why
use it you might ask...hang on).
My point is, that the software company doesn't loose a rotten dime on me
using their software, cause if I didn't use the cracked version I would
still not be able to pay for the retaill one.
The thing here is, listen to this and think:
When I get out in the working life, start to earn a living. Let's say I
start with some kind of graphics. What application do you think I'll
buy? The shareware version of 'paint shop pro' which is way below my
league or the state of the art 'photoshop' that I know as the back of my
palm??? Same goes for any other app that I've been using. Even though I
havn't spent money on the application in the past, I've invested alot of
time learning the application, alot of knowledge. This could be the same
as money...
So by getting me to use their applications I will continue to use them
in the future. Think about it. If you've got a certain application that
you've used in school for free(I've excluded the license amount that the
school pays due to the fact that I don't deal with that cost directly),
and you've become very comfortable with it, you won't switch it, right.
What's the difference between using that app at home for free (it's a
similar situation), you won't switch it...no, you'll buy IT when it's
time to buy THAT genre of software!!!!
Laurence Payne
>
>thankfully Steinberg have gone from being company that puts out bug ridden
>programs,
>to one that updates & fixes bugs, I would say they learnt a lot from
>creating Nuendo.
--
Aphelion
>So by getting me to use their applications I will continue to use them
>in the future. Think about it. If you've got a certain application that
>you've used in school for free(I've excluded the license amount that the
>school pays due to the fact that I don't deal with that cost directly),
>and you've become very comfortable with it, you won't switch it, right.
>What's the difference between using that app at home for free (it's a
>similar situation), you won't switch it...no, you'll buy IT when it's
>time to buy THAT genre of software!!!!
I've heard this rationale before... but in my experience (17 years of
having a computer MIDI, and later audio setup). I've found that the
people who use stolen software and know how to find it.... or borrow
it... keep on doing it, because THEY CAN!
What you're telling me (and it may be true in your case) is that warez
users conscientiously buy the programs they've been using once they
are able?!?!?
If you use... a crack, or a "borrowed" program (I'm being nice) for
(insert favorite deity here) Christ's sake just say so, the rationale
is only for you, certainly not for me, the manufacturer or anyone
else!
Ap
Hull Blackwell
Hi Laurence Payne,
> So you'll need a new excuse not to buy SZ then? :-)
no excusess needed my friend,
I am a Pirate. );^)>
regards
Hull
:^)
Hull Blackwell
Hi David Wargert,
> I've also tested the cracked SX and the biggest problem I've encountered
> is in the midi editor window I can't seem to move the notes using my
> mouse. I get some kind of error message. I have to use the move to
> cursor command.
this was not the 'cracked' version, it is a hack job, done with the
dongle emulator
for Nuendo
the real 'cracked' version is by Oxygen, which comes with a single .exe
file & a NFO.
as for you other thing, all I can say is if you use the program, & make
or have money,
R.V. Gronoff
"David Wargert" <david....@telia.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3D2F6509...@telia.com...
Can't be worse than 3.5: three years of crash and destroyed weeks of hard
labour since 1997... :o(((
Oh, and, of course, it never detected my sound card properly (a Yamaha
GS/XG) due to their f*cked up ASIO drivers (although Band in a Box, every
version of it since v7, had never had any problem to work straight from the
box).
Steinberg vs Peter Gannon:
Germany: 0 - Canada: 10.
R.V. Gronoff
"Hull Blackwell" <dez...@shaw.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
djvX8.13196$BD1.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Adobe's never produced a crappy software. Their patches are mostly
maintenance releases or minor corrections.
Only Netscape and Steinberg stuff are threats for the OS.
I remember installing Cubase 3.5. Perhaps ten times: it didn't work at all,
and everytime I fixed something in Windows I had to reinstall Cubase and
redo the dozens of settings to have it work... for awhile, until the next
crash.
A Cubase warez crack can't be *worse* than the original - otherwise it would
simply be called the fattest virus ever.
R.V. Gronoff
>
>
>
> as for you other thing, all I can say is if you use the program, &
make
> or have money,
> buy it!
Completely agreed ! If I make some money thanks to someone else's work, I
owe him his fair salary (like paying my user's licence).
Now, if a software appears to destroy my work and waste my time, well,
urm...
Robert Schulze Lutum
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@laposte.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:agklq1$mfagc$1...@ID-77205.news.dfncis.de...
You need to read the manual.
SX´s score code can do what you want it to do.
RSL
Robert Schulze Lutum
> That's true for me: I purchased both Cubase for Falcon and Cubase 3.5 for
> Windows and I've spent my last five years regretting it.
>
> The only music software I'm happy to pay for is Band in a Box: reliable,
> comes with tons of extras (like hundreds of style files, sofsynth, MIDI to
> CD recorder, etc. and at a very affordable price.
>
> As I said: I'm using a cracked version of Cub 5 because I'll never use the
> extra "super-kolossale" boche technology it offers (I'm just a MIDI
> composer), but because I want an equivalent of my crappy, full-paid, v3.7
> that will work on a WinXP machine.
>
> And I'm still unable to insert a silence in a bar without moving all the
> other notes !!! Arrrgh !
If I tell you it´s done, will you buy a fully paid version of cubase from
me?
RSL (nous afons les moyens de fous faire bayer!)
cannone
Steinberg will fix it"
I bought a copy of Cubase 5r1 VST32 back in the day and immediatly found a
few bugs which i reported. R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, 5.1R1 i am still sitting with
the same bug.
Sometime i think the guys who use the cracks have a point. Because even if
you are legal, Steinberg still doesn't listen . Maybe i must get the cracked
SX and test it to see if my bug is fixed before i WASTE more money.
"Funkybot" <funk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020710204955...@mb-mf.aol.com...
> Well even if they are Stienberg bugs, if you buy it, chances are Stienberg
will
> eventually getting around to fixing at least some of them.
Aphelion
wrote:
>Without trying to sound sarcastic, but everyone is saying "if there's a bug
>Steinberg will fix it"
>
>I bought a copy of Cubase 5r1 VST32 back in the day and immediatly found a
>few bugs which i reported. R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, 5.1R1 i am still sitting with
>the same bug.
>
>Sometime i think the guys who use the cracks have a point. Because even if
>you are legal, Steinberg still doesn't listen . Maybe i must get the cracked
>SX and test it to see if my bug is fixed before i WASTE more money.
So, the bug(s) you've found make the program totally useless to you??
I seriously doubt this is the case...
What are these bugs that cripple the program so you feel you've WASTED
your money.
Everyone can find a bug, no big deal, but a bug that cripples the
software to the point of being a waste.... do tell more.
Sounds like yet another excuse to use a crack.
Post your bugs... ask the users here running SX if they're fixed.
Ap
shakey
be pissed too if you had a bug that rendered the software difficult to
use. It already is armed with a dongle and a high price.
It's like eating in a very expensive restaurant. Excellent food and
service is absolutely to be expected. If the service is very slow and
the food is extremely bland, it doesn't render the food completely
useless but it sure as hell feels like you have been taken for a ride.
It's worse if it's virtually the only restaurant in the area, you've
made an investment in it, and you have to be reminded of that fact
every time you eat there. Steinberg's attitude is enough to make one
puke.
He paid for a license. Don't ever make the mistake of brandishing
someone like him a wanabe freeloader before you take a good look at
how you might feel.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:23:43 GMT, too...@fromthesun.com (Aphelion)
wrote:
Aphelion
wrote:
>Don't belittle anyone else's pain.... we PAID for our licenses. You'd
>be pissed too if you had a bug that rendered the software difficult to
>use. It already is armed with a dongle and a high price.
>It's like eating in a very expensive restaurant. Excellent food and
>service is absolutely to be expected. If the service is very slow and
>the food is extremely bland, it doesn't render the food completely
>useless but it sure as hell feels like you have been taken for a ride.
>It's worse if it's virtually the only restaurant in the area, you've
>made an investment in it, and you have to be reminded of that fact
>every time you eat there. Steinberg's attitude is enough to make one
>puke.
I would think in a resturant this bad.... the vote would be
unanamous... it's not! I asked him to list some of the bugs that make
the program "unusable".. and those are his words.
Many people mistake hardware/software configuration problems for bugs.
A program like Cubase stretches the limits of the machine, any
inconsistency can and will show up.
I would consider the patron a fool if he ate at a resturant he made an
investment in.... declared the food unedible.. got up and left without
explaining how and why it was so. Doesn't do anyone any good, just
makes for big show.
>He paid for a license. Don't ever make the mistake of brandishing
>someone like him a wanabe freeloader before you take a good look at
>how you might feel.
I would feel like dealing with it in a way that produced action and/or
satisfaction... not throwing about threats to use cracks and having an
emotional hissy fit.
Again, what are these bugs that make the program unusable?
Ap
cannone
Hi AP.
I have sent my bug to this group and the Beta testing forum on the VST
website umpteen times and all I get is sarcasm and a "slap in the face." By
no means do I say the program is unusable, but what I am sitting with (and
here we go again another slap is heading my way) is a piece of hardware
which Steinberg CLAIMS to support in their software, but which is not
functioning like THEY CLAIM it should. I forwarded my original complaint to
the hardware manufacturer as well, but at the end of the day it boils down
to POLITICS. Steinberg won't release it's source code to the hardware
manufacturer and the manufacturer will not release it's hardware/driver code
to Steinberg.
I work in the music retail industry here in South Africa and (coincidently)
work for the local import agent of the hardware who obviously has direct
contact with the manufacturers. I am also in regular contact with the
Steinberg Agent here and all that happens is we get pointed at by Steinberg
and we (as the importers/agents) point back at them. It has actually become
a local joke, because since neither of us are directly involved in the
manufacturing, both agents here in SA can do nothing.
My point is, if Steinberg are listening to their LEGAL USERS, they would
have picked up my problem back in 5r1. The 5 series is finished and now they
want us to buy their latest offer, but yet some of us are still sitting with
original BETA RELEASE problems!
"Aphelion" <too...@fromthesun.com> wrote in message
news:3d351234...@news-west.giganews.com...
> >>>few bugs which I reported. R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, 5.1R1 I am still sitting
with
> >>>the same bug.
> >>>
> >>>Sometime I think the guys who use the cracks have a point. Because even
if
> >>>you are legal, Steinberg still doesn't listen . Maybe I must get the
cracked
> >>>SX and test it to see if my bug is fixed before I WASTE more money.
Aphelion
wrote:
>Firstly Thanks to Shakey for agreeing with me to an extent.
>
>Hi AP.
>
>I have sent my bug to this group and the Beta testing forum on the VST
>website umpteen times and all I get is sarcasm and a "slap in the face." By
>no means do I say the program is unusable, but what I am sitting with (and
>here we go again another slap is heading my way) is a piece of hardware
>which Steinberg CLAIMS to support in their software, but which is not
>functioning like THEY CLAIM it should. I forwarded my original complaint to
>the hardware manufacturer as well, but at the end of the day it boils down
>to POLITICS. Steinberg won't release it's source code to the hardware
>manufacturer and the manufacturer will not release it's hardware/driver code
>to Steinberg.
>
>I work in the music retail industry here in South Africa and (coincidently)
>work for the local import agent of the hardware who obviously has direct
>contact with the manufacturers. I am also in regular contact with the
>Steinberg Agent here and all that happens is we get pointed at by Steinberg
>and we (as the importers/agents) point back at them. It has actually become
>a local joke, because since neither of us are directly involved in the
>manufacturing, both agents here in SA can do nothing.
>
>My point is, if Steinberg are listening to their LEGAL USERS, they would
>have picked up my problem back in 5r1. The 5 series is finished and now they
>want us to buy their latest offer, but yet some of us are still sitting with
>original BETA RELEASE problems!
Hi,
Yes, but you don't mention what hardware you're speaking of...
Nor do you mention the actual bugs, other than some kind on
incompatibility.
And in your original post... you did say the software was unusable.
That's what I found hard to believe.
Also, if you work in the retail music industry, surely you can find a
legal copy of SX to try out and see if the compatibility "bugs" have
been fixed. I certainly wouldn't use a cracked version of the software
to verify a bug fix.
Last:
>Steinberg won't release it's source code to the hardware
>manufacturer and the manufacturer will not release it's hardware/driver code
>to Steinberg.
I don't know of -Any- (Logic, Cakewalk, Steinberg, MOTU) software
manufacturer that would release the source code of their flagship
product (or any product) in order to insure compatibility. Normally
programmers api guidelines (like the VSTi plugin interface) are what
is released. The two actual programmers I know doing commercial work
in this field say Steinberg (more so than Emagic) have been very
forthcoming and willing to supply programmers with needed info.
If a product is not supported by a company it usually means there's
not enough demand or interest yet, in which case I think it's up to
the hardware manufacturer to approach Steinberg.
Hard to say as we don't know what hardware you're talking about.
Ap
cannone
u-8 control surface. It has a small function problem when trying to sweep
the EQ on any channel except ch1. channel 1 works perfectly but as soon as I
try to sweep the EQ on Channel 2 or up it jumps back to 1 and stuffs up that
eq.
Simple problem. I mean it already works perfectly on Ch 1 but not on the
rest.
Next you'll probably tell me to program a generic controller. Well the u-8
transfers sysex info which is not available under generic remote. Apparently
Roland/Edirol and Steinberg have a bit of a communication problem. Steinberg
won't let Roland try the software before it is released, and Roland won't
let Steinberg have a U-8 (or so I am told).
Secondly I am running Windows 98se and SX, or even SL in that case, only
works under 2000 or XP. Now I much reinstall a full computer to test the
software over a small eq control problem? If it isn't fixed I have to
reinstall 98 again to get back to my original setup.
"Aphelion" <too...@fromthesun.com> wrote in message
news:3d370be2...@news-west.giganews.com...
dman
lets you install on win98. There's no support from Steinberg on this
platform, but I guess that's a minor problem since you're not too
impressed with their support anyway. ;o)
dman
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:07:27 +0200, "cannone" <can...@iafrica.com>
wrote:
Aphelion
wrote:
>OK Ap you do make a point. The hardware I am referring to is the RolandEd
>u-8 control surface. It has a small function problem when trying to sweep
>the EQ on any channel except ch1. channel 1 works perfectly but as soon as I
>try to sweep the EQ on Channel 2 or up it jumps back to 1 and stuffs up that
>eq. Simple problem. I mean it already works perfectly on Ch 1 but not on the
>rest.
Hi
Proably only sends messages out on channel-1
What happens if you flip MIDI channels aound in the inspector.
Assign track 2 to MIDI channel 1. Track 1 to MIDI channel 2.
Also, try disabling MIDI THRU in Cubase.
Not sure which EQ you're speaking of the VST Mixer EQ or the softare
control of the U-8's EQ?
>Next you'll probably tell me to program a generic controller. Well the u-8
>transfers sysex info which is not available under generic remote. Apparently
>Roland/Edirol and Steinberg have a bit of a communication problem. Steinberg
>won't let Roland try the software before it is released, and Roland won't
>let Steinberg have a U-8 (or so I am told).
They must have exchanged hardware and info at one time.
On the Edirol site they only list the RolandEd U-8 as being compatible
with Cubasis, is this dated info?
Does it work correctly with Cubasis?
=====================
Q: What software will work with the U-8?
A: The U-8 is an Audio interface, Effects Processor, and Control
Surface all wrapped up in a convenient package. Currently, it is fully
functional with Steinberg Cubasis VST 3.7 R2(U-8), Cakewalk HomeStudio
9.03, and Cakewalk ProAudio 9.03. The U-8 can also work as an audio
interface and effects processor on most other DAW programs, but not as
a controller.
===================
Cubase lists an R-8 in the remote section, is the Edirol U-8
programmed differently? Do Roland (non-ED) U-8's work with the EQ?
>Secondly I am running Windows 98se and SX, or even SL in that case, only
>works under 2000 or XP. Now I much reinstall a full computer to test the
>software over a small eq control problem? If it isn't fixed I have to
>reinstall 98 again to get back to my original setup.
If you use an inexpensive program like Ghost (free on some motherboard
utility disks) it's easy to make a quick image of the OS, let's you
have several different OSs available, each taking only a few minutes
to load or backup. Anyway, a partial solution.
Since Edirol doesn't list support for Cubase or Cubase SX and you say
they have a communication problem... it seems doubtful that CubaseSX
is going to be a solution.
lancelightning
V1.02 is only available as an upgrade...so how can you possibly
install SXon Win98?.........LL
dman
1.0/1.01 can get it from Steinberg and distributors.
dman
lancelightning
the choice...I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that
the Oxygen warez release allegedly works on 98SE and ME.......LL
dman
>Aaah...that's good news...XP is OK but it would have been nice to have
>the choice...I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that
>the Oxygen warez release allegedly works on 98SE and ME.......LL
>
>
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:11:03 GMT, dman <d...@man.com> wrote:
>
>>Ver. 1.02 CD's are being released shortly. Those who already bought
>>1.0/1.01 can get it from Steinberg and distributors.
>>
>>dman
>>
Hi LL.
Here's the official statement as published in the Cubase Forum at
Stenberg.net:
dman
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cubase SX and Windows 98.
As many of you know, when Cubase SX was initially released we
deliberately created an installer that prohibited the installation
under Windows 98 systems. But we have changed our minds!
Now before people go rushing off and say that everything’s now fine
for SX under Windows 98 - I just want to throw a spanner in those
works in that I need to tell you this is exactly not what's happened.
Cubase SX requires Windows 2000 or XP just as before - the only
difference is that you can install it under Windows 98. Cubase SX
still only supports 2000/ & XP - and that will remain part of the
minimum system requirements.
Firstly to bring everyone up-to-date with the issues here’s our view
on the whole Windows 2000/XP issue ( if it seems familiar it is
largely the same as my original clarification of our position - this I
can do because actually from the pure technical point of view we
haven’t changed our minds. )
To quote myself....
Probably the most important point is that Cubase SX has been developed
and tested on Windows 2000 and XP systems from the start: And that’s
the requirement we have made for running it. The question is why?
It’s practically impossible to explain why Cubase SX is specifically
for 2000/XP without getting into deep technical details so I will try
and steer a middle course between just saying it is just so, or
starting a discussion where everyone who has ever looked over the
Windows documentation feels they could offer advice on how we should
have done it…. :-)
Here we go.
A thoroughly modern application like Cubase SX relies on a carefully
managed and highly optimised set of concurrently active tasks, called
threads. You may think the song is just playing when you pressed the
start button - one linear task - but this illusion of linearity is
only possible because a complex set of radically different operations
are all competing for computing time.
The composition, structure, relative priority and behaviour of each
and all these individual threads is critical for a predictable and
efficient program.
But these threads started by Cubase SX are not alone: there are a
bewildering number of other threads started by other applications and
the OS itself. What is important to understand is that the CONTEXT in
which Cubase SX threads run is of equal importance to the interaction
of the threads themselves.
Simply said, the context we have chosen is Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
And to answer another question: Yes, the network of threads Cubase SX
creates will probably all appear to work on other Windows versions,
but whether they will work as we intend is another question
altogether.
In other words we have written Cubase SX for the ‘NT kernel’ that lies
at the heart of all current Microsoft OS products. While one OS
version may seem superficially the same as another, the behaviour is
different, if only subtly. It is the success of Microsoft in keeping
the rate of user experience change at a level where new Windows
versions seem familiar, and that previous applications still work. For
equally complex, but non real-time critical applications, there may be
measurable but imperceptible differences. With a real-time
application, like Cubase SX, would you be happy with audio or MIDI
dropouts? Would you be made any happier by being assured that they are
only small dropouts? We think not. We want Cubase SX to be used in the
context for which it was created.
Of course we can change Cubase SX and its installers so it will
install and start on practically any Windows version created in last
seven years. But we would still be in the position of saying, yes it
may work for you but we don’t officially support it. Maybe I should be
precise about what offering support means: It means being able to do
something when something seemingly does not work - not just feeling
quietly contented when it apparently does.
We have already made strong recommendations for using Windows 2000 and
Windows XP with our Nuendo application - and will continue to
strengthen these recommendations with future Nuendo versions - as many
of you know Cubase SX and Nuendo share a great deal of technology, and
to make a different system recommendation for each, makes little
sense.
...end quote.
That was then and this is now. So what has changed? Why are we now
allowing the SX version that is still only for Windows 2000 / XP to be
installed under Windows 98? - and why am I writing this rather than
just letting the ‘world-wide alternate truth engine’ generate its own
version of affairs. (actually it is largely irrelevant that I write
this - the engine is probably revving up now - vrooom - vrooom ).
Maybe the first rumour to squash is that it’s a reaction because SX
sales are not what we expected. Well the truth is that we have
exceeded our own expectations but that doesn’t mean we should rest on
our laurels - We actually think right now is a very interesting time
to attract new potential SX customers to come an test our wares. If
you know what I mean….
Another reason is that we want to get as many of the Cubase 5.1 users
to upgrade to SX and as many of you know the 5.1 became a very solid
tool over the last year and regularly we read here that "5.1 works
flawlessly for me" threads. What would be the incentive to actually
try SX if you can’t actually try it on your own machine without having
window 2000/XP installed - coupled with the fact you have a tool
already installed that does everything you want - would you be at
least curious at what's getting people all excited about SX. ( note to
self - must take less marketing tablets.)
Which brings us neatly to the next point: It’s not just trying the
product that is important, being able to afford it is equally vital.
With our previous installer policy it was a pre-requisite that you
purchased a Cubase SX and a Windows Update at the same time before you
could actually even get your first hands-on look at the program. If
you could not afford both at the same time then the only options were
waiting until you could, or purchasing the Windows Update first, or
letting the SX gather dust before sometime later purchasing the
Windows update. None of which are particularly attractive options. We
have noticed how many serious SX users are spending the time to get to
know their SX before using it in the heat of a session. In our minds
it makes sense to let people do this even before they have the
necessary OS update.
It is also clear how many Cubase owners are in close contact with
others - and by unlocking the installer we allow one user to
temporarily let another test out Cubase SX on the actual machine on
which it would be used even without Windows 2000 / XP. There are many
reasons for this: Will I like it? Will it work with my hardware? And
how many effects can I run at the same time before the CPU ‘over’
dares blink at me….
Another aspect is that our research has shown that not all outlets
where you can actually buy a Cubase SX actually have Windows 2000 / XP
installed. While I am sure that buying software is certainly not an
impulse ‘sight unseen’ matter, getting a glimpse of the thing working
is a component of the purchasing decision. (for me personally screen
shots don’t cut it when getting a feel for how working with a piece of
software might be)
Further to this, and obviously as a natural extension of this thought,
we are working on a Cubase SX demo version - the reason why we held
off doing this when the program was initially released is now not as
important as it was since the first cracks have appeared. (did you
expect me to deny they exist :-)) but that’s just the first round in
the battle. As one reason currently becomes less important - it only
makes sense to re-evaluate the benefits of having a Demo version to
download. We have and there will be demos.
OK you see I am selling the plus side but there is also the other side
of the coin.
Cubase SX and Windows 2000/XP were literally made for each other. When
running under 98 the program will not be running optimally. That does
not mean it won’t run - or necessarily crash - but there are some
areas that are definitely gray. The main one being potentially MIDI to
audio sync. We can’t say that there will definitely be problems -
because as an unsupported set-up we haven’t done any comprehensive
tests.
There is perhaps an even more important issue to take into account if
you find yourself running Cubase SX under Windows 98. Windows 2000/XP
has a very different resource management in comparison to Windows 98.
This means that, under Windows 98, bitmaps and fonts and even painting
the screen are all ‘resources’ that have to compete with the
relatively sparse graphics resource heap. If you use a lot of plug-ins
that use a large amount of graphic resources or start other
applications, you can all to soon get into the situation where Window
98 is saying ‘90% of your resources are in use etc’ and sections of
the screen will probably not be updated properly (another classic
symptom is that the wrong fonts are used for drawing). Under Windows
2000/XP this is, in comparison, no significant problem as the resource
heap is much better organised.
While we are talking about the less positive stuff. The question of
support will have arisen for many of you. The situation is that we
still require Windows 2000 / XP officially, and that will actually
stay like that. We will not be denying support to Cubase SX customers
who choose to use Windows 98 but you have to understand that if a
problem occurs that we believe is related directly to the use of
Windows 98 our options to do anything about it are limited. We hope
that most users will understand that Cubase SX under Windows 98 is a
transitional state - requested by a large number of you.
Finally, what of the future? As I already said, we see this
installation under Windows 98 as a transitional state - it could be
that sometime in the middle to long term future the Cubase SX becomes
a program that is only installable under Windows 2000 or XP again (or
whatever the OS is called them) . This is not planned now, but we need
to keep the option open.
And finally, if you thought that this would never end, the current
installers out there cannot be modified to now allow installation
under Windows 98. New installers will be necessary. Equally we cannot
offer patches for the current versions because the patches can only
modify a program that is already installed. The first versions that
can be installed under Windows 98 will be the production CD-ROMs for
1.02 for both the Cubase SX and new Cubase SL versions.
Sorry that it’s so much text to read, but it's not something we can
just do without comment.
Regards
Dave Nicholson
Steinberg.
cannone
> Probably only sends messages out on channel-1
> What happens if you flip MIDI channels around in the inspector.
> Assign track 2 to MIDI channel 1. Track 1 to MIDI channel 2.
How do you do that?
Let me explain how the u-8 works: There are 3 "modes" (if we can call it
that) on the unit for the 8 faders.
1. Audio: transmits sysex for the 8 volume faders as well as the four
control knobs
2. MIDI 1-8: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels 1-8
3. MIDI 9-16: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels 9-16
(I think one of the control knobs transmits PAN cc in mode 2+3)
so referring to above, no there is no way to assign midi channels since midi
controls midi and sysex controls the audio channels.
> Not sure which EQ you're speaking of the VST Mixer EQ or the software
> control of the U-8's EQ?
I am referring to the EQ on the channels of the VST Mixer
> On the Edirol site they only list the RolandEd U-8 as being compatible
> with Cubasis, is this dated info?
> Does it work correctly with Cubasis?
> =====================
> Q: What software will work with the U-8?
> A: The U-8 is an Audio interface, Effects Processor, and Control
> Surface all wrapped up in a convenient package. Currently, it is fully
> functional with Steinberg Cubasis VST 3.7 R2(U-8), Cakewalk HomeStudio
> 9.03, and Cakewalk ProAudio 9.03. The U-8 can also work as an audio
> interface and effects processor on most other DAW programs, but not as
> a controller.
> ===================
> Cubase lists an R-8 in the remote section, is the Edirol U-8
> programmed differently? Do Roland (non-ED) U-8's work with the EQ?
This info is very dated. since the release of 5.0 the u-8 has been a control
surface. The Cubasis they are referring to is an OEM version which came with
the u-8. With this it works fine but you are completely limited in features.
That is why there was an upgrade offered to U-8 owners to the full CUBASE
VST.
I'm not sure where you get the r-8 from? Roland u-8, Edirol u-8, RolandEd
u-8 are all the same thing. Roland and Edirol are apparently sister
companies (or something like that). Edirol handles all the Multi-media items
e.g. software, midi and audio interfaces, etc.
> Since Edirol doesn't list support for Cubase or Cubase SX and you say
> they have a communication problem... it seems doubtful that CubaseSX
> is going to be a solution.
Well this is what I was saying in the beginning. Why do they claim to
support it in the first place if they won't give a person any support. And
that boils back to my original point, if it is supported in SX (like it was
in 5.0) and I am still having a problem or I have another problem, and I
spend the money (like it was in 5.0) and I tell them (like it was in 5.0),
and I download another 7 upgrades (like it was in 5.0), and they still don't
fix it (like they did with 5.0), do I have the right to moan?
Aphelion
wrote:
>> Probably only sends messages out on channel-1
>> What happens if you flip MIDI channels around in the inspector.
>> Assign track 2 to MIDI channel 1. Track 1 to MIDI channel 2.
In the left hand part of the display is the inspector, each audio
track has an assignable MIDI channel. Try assigning audio traks 1-8 to
MIDI channels 1-8. (I think this is default). Don't use "any".
>Let me explain how the u-8 works: There are 3 "modes" (if we can call it
>that) on the unit for the 8 faders.
Cubase supplies this documentation regarding integration with the U-8.
The U-8 controls the U-8 Mixer when its window is open.
To open the U-8 Mixer window press the Mixer button on the U-8.
When the U-8 Mixer window is closed, the U-8 will remote control the
following VST and MIDI Track Mixer parameter for each channel strip:
• Fader: Volume (for VST and MIDI Track Mixer channels)
• Track Status:: Selects VST channel for editing
• Mixer Dial 1: Pan
• Mixer Dial 2: FX-Send 1
• Mixer Dial 3: EQ1 Gain (press the U-8 Shift key to control EQ1 Freq)
• Mixer Dial 3: EQ2 Gain (press the U-8 Shift key to control EQ2 Freq)
• The U-8 Transport keys will have the equivalent functionality in
VST.
• To set Markers, hold down "Set" while pressing a Locator key.
• The Time/Value wheel will act as Position-Shuttle.
• Loop will control the Cycle status.
• Auto Punch will control the Punch In status.
• The U-8 supports "MIDI Feedback", allowing for selection and
Transport status to be indicated on the panel. For this to work, you
need to select the "U-8 Control In" port as input and the "U-8 Control
Out" as output.
Unless the RolandED has different output parameters this should work.
I think what you're saying is the 4 control knobs always control track
one EQ, FX Send and Pan?
--- Change tracks the U8 -and- then click on the second audio track
onscreen, making sure the audio tracks are set to different MIDI
channels.
Under MIDI filtering, set sysex thru to OFF.
Check the MIDI implementation setup on the U8, you should be able to
do want you want, I'm guessing it's a setup problem.
>1. Audio: transmits sysex for the 8 volume faders as well as the four
>control knobs
>2. MIDI 1-8: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels 1-8
>3. MIDI 9-16: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels 9-16
>(I think one of the control knobs transmits PAN cc in mode 2+3)
>
>so referring to above, no there is no way to assign midi channels since midi
>controls midi and sysex controls the audio channels.
>Well this is what I was saying in the beginning. Why do they claim to
>support it in the first place if they won't give a person any support. And
>that boils back to my original point, if it is supported in SX (like it was
>in 5.0) and I am still having a problem or I have another problem, and I
>spend the money (like it was in 5.0) and I tell them (like it was in 5.0),
>and I download another 7 upgrades (like it was in 5.0), and they still don't
>fix it (like they did with 5.0), do I have the right to moan?
Do other U8 owners complain of the -exact- same problem??
Ap
cannone
> >> What happens if you flip MIDI channels around in the inspector.
> >> Assign track 2 to MIDI channel 1. Track 1 to MIDI channel 2.
>
> In the left hand part of the display is the inspector, each audio
> track has an assignable MIDI channel. Try assigning audio traks 1-8 to
> MIDI channels 1-8. (I think this is default). Don't use "any".
I'm sure if i am following. I always thought that the channels as such of
the audio tracks were something totally different.
>
> >Let me explain how the u-8 works: There are 3 "modes" (if we can call it
> >that) on the unit for the 8 faders.
>
> Cubase supplies this documentation regarding integration with the U-8.
>
> The U-8 controls the U-8 Mixer when its window is open.
> To open the U-8 Mixer window press the Mixer button on the U-8.
> When the U-8 Mixer window is closed, the U-8 will remote control the
> following VST and MIDI Track Mixer parameter for each channel strip:
> . Fader: Volume (for VST and MIDI Track Mixer channels)
> . Track Status:: Selects VST channel for editing
> . Mixer Dial 1: Pan
> . Mixer Dial 2: FX-Send 1
> . Mixer Dial 3: EQ1 Gain (press the U-8 Shift key to control EQ1 Freq)
> . Mixer Dial 3: EQ2 Gain (press the U-8 Shift key to control EQ2 Freq)
> . The U-8 Transport keys will have the equivalent functionality in
> VST.
> . To set Markers, hold down "Set" while pressing a Locator key.
> . The Time/Value wheel will act as Position-Shuttle.
> . Loop will control the Cycle status.
> . Auto Punch will control the Punch In status.
> . The U-8 supports "MIDI Feedback", allowing for selection and
> Transport status to be indicated on the panel. For this to work, you
> need to select the "U-8 Control In" port as input and the "U-8 Control
> Out" as output.
>
> Unless the RolandED has different output parameters this should work.
My point exactly.
> I think what you're saying is the 4 control knobs always control track
> one EQ, FX Send and Pan?
Well no not actually. they control each channel perfectly 1-8, but as soon
as i press the SHIFT button, as they have mentioned above, to sweep the eq,
it jumps back to ch 1. ie. only chanel one can be swept, but all the other
controls work fine.
> --- Change tracks the U8 -and- then click on the second audio track
> onscreen, making sure the audio tracks are set to different MIDI
> channels.
>
> Under MIDI filtering, set sysex thru to OFF.
>
> Check the MIDI implementation setup on the U8, you should be able to
> do want you want, I'm guessing it's a setup problem.
This is the part that i am actually complaining about. Cubase claims the u-8
is suposed to control something which it isn't. I have a u-8 setup at the
shop where i work and even there i have no joy.
> >1. Audio: transmits sysex for the 8 volume faders as well as the four
> >control knobs
> >2. MIDI 1-8: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels 1-8
>
>
> >3. MIDI 9-16: transmits MIDI cc. (volume) on the sliders for channels
9-16
> >(I think one of the control knobs transmits PAN cc in mode 2+3)
> >
> >so referring to above, no there is no way to assign midi channels since
midi
> >controls midi and sysex controls the audio channels.
>
>
> >Well this is what I was saying in the beginning. Why do they claim to
> >support it in the first place if they won't give a person any support.
And
> >that boils back to my original point, if it is supported in SX (like it
was
> >in 5.0) and I am still having a problem or I have another problem, and I
> >spend the money (like it was in 5.0) and I tell them (like it was in
5.0),
> >and I download another 7 upgrades (like it was in 5.0), and they still
don't
> >fix it (like they did with 5.0), do I have the right to moan?
>
>
> Do other U8 owners complain of the -exact- same problem??
i have posted this problem (even as far as the yahoo u-8 forum) and i never
get any replies. either nobody reads my message or there aren't many users
around. Thaks anyway i'll take a look at a few of your suggestions
Kevin Cannone
mil_s...@iafrica.com
Ceewun
"Hull Blackwell" <dez...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7fhX8.213$ab1....@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> Hi dman,
>
>
> > A cracked version is never a good place to weed out bugs ;o)
>
>
> not true, that is the main reason of being for the whole cracked
software
> scene.
>
Bollocks. The main reason for the 'cracked software scene' is that:
(i) It is populated and patronised by people who have nothing valuable to
offer. Thus, they cannot relate to being paid (as they, effectively, have
nothing worth paying for) and thus have no qualms about not paying others.
Moreover, they live in a society that not only do they feel owes them a life
but also allows them to be useless.
(ii) They are thieves. They steal.
Period.
All else is bullshit.
>
> why buy bug ridden versions, when you can wait till the bugs are fixed!
You mean: Why spend money on something when you don't have to ? If you use
STOLEN software, you are a thief, mate. A Freeloader. Piss off and loop
something.
,c.
Ceewun
"R.V. Gronoff" <regis....@laposte.net> wrote in message
news:agkevt$m2ak2$1...@ID-77205.news.dfncis.de...
> That's true for me: I purchased both Cubase for Falcon and Cubase 3.5 for
> Windows and I've spent my last five years regretting it.
>
> The only music software I'm happy to pay for is Band in a Box: reliable,
> comes with tons of extras (like hundreds of style files, sofsynth, MIDI to
> CD recorder, etc. and at a very affordable price.
You see... evidence that these thieves have nothing to offer. Band In A
Box?? Says it all really... about as creative as a fart in a woodshed. I
dare say that the only Band in your Box is your sphincter.
> As I said: I'm using a cracked version of Cub 5 because I'll never use the
> extra "super-kolossale" boche technology it offers (I'm just a MIDI
> composer), but because I want an equivalent of my crappy, full-paid, v3.7
> that will work on a WinXP machine.
You're using a cracked Cub5 because you're a thief, mate and you're too poor
to upgrade to V5 (despite your having a PC (don't tell me you're here on
your ruddy Falcon)). So, if you're too poor to pay the hundred quid to
upgrade to v5 legit, hasn't it dawned on you that your musical expertise way
out in Pretend Land.
> And I'm still unable to insert a silence in a bar without moving all the
> other notes !!! Arrrgh !
That is, you see, because you're thick. Get over it. Join the Jade fan
club. htp://www.savejade.com .
Aphelion
wrote:
>
>"Hull Blackwell" <dez...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:7fhX8.213$ab1....@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>
>> Hi dman,
>>
>>
>> > A cracked version is never a good place to weed out bugs ;o)
>>
>>
>> not true, that is the main reason of being for the whole cracked
>software
>> scene.
>>
>
>
>Bollocks. The main reason for the 'cracked software scene' is that:
>
>(i) It is populated and patronised by people who have nothing valuable to
>offer. Thus, they cannot relate to being paid (as they, effectively, have
>nothing worth paying for) and thus have no qualms about not paying others.
>Moreover, they live in a society that not only do they feel owes them a life
>but also allows them to be useless.
>
>(ii) They are thieves. They steal.
>
>Period.
>
>All else is bullshit.
Ceewun,
A man after my own heart......
Even though what you say is not 100% true, I can imagine there are
those who use cracked software that do contribute to the whole....
.....the greatest portion fit your definition to a tee.
>> why buy bug ridden versions, when you can wait till the bugs are fixed!
Because a portion of the money spent buying the "bug ridden" (cough)
software finances new software development and also finances
maintenance releases, aka bug fixes.
But why bother contributing...right?
Just wait until the bugs are fixed, download it for free and never
bother paying... this is what happens. Maybe, just maybe 1 out of 50
pirates go the straight route.... maybe.
Ap
Ceewun
consumers. Everyone has a right to return any product, even a bar of
chocolate let alone a software product, that they deem useless to them
having PAID FOR IT and get a FULL REFUND. This is about theft, pure and
simple, made transparent to their 'morals' simply due to technology. What's
more, these fuckwits have stolen from you and me both if you pursue the
argument. They have denied us development time, printed manuals etc etc.
Fuck 'em.
I choose to live my life being able to look ANYONE in the eye.
,c.
Laurence Payne
useless :-)
>Come on, Ap. There are laws in the Free (haha) World that protect
>consumers. Everyone has a right to return any product, even a bar of
>chocolate let alone a software product, that they deem useless to them
>having PAID FOR IT and get a FULL REFUND.
--
My Cubase FAQ page is
www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
Feedback welcome.
Aphelion
wrote:
In case you didn't notice, I was agreeing with everything you
posted... except maybe the black & white view that -everyone-
who uses a cracked program is somehow immoral or doesn't contribute to
society... sounds a bit extreme to me.
Most of the reasons for using cracks I see posted here are empty
justifications.
Ap
lynton
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:58:22 +0100, "Ceewun" <cee...@emailDOT.com> wrote:
Aphelion
<lna...@deleteonetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Odd that piracy should inflame such zealotry. I'll avert my gaze if that's ok.
LOL......
do not cast thee eyes upon, lest ye too become inflamed.
Ap
Ceewun
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:50:41 +0100, lynton
> <lna...@deleteonetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >Odd that piracy should inflame such zealotry. I'll avert my gaze if
that's ok.
Only odd to those who do not make a penny from their intellectual or
creative property. But anyway, it's not as if the world would notice their
demise is it?
>
> LOL......
>
> do not cast thee eyes upon, lest ye too become inflamed.
>
> Ap
>
>
LOL! Well, one of those days I guess! I just felt like letting off some,
er, pissedoffedness. And Ap, I wasn't arguing with you or getting on your
back.. I just think there is no need to be soft on the shits that steal
other peoples' work!
Anyway, I'm back in the studio tomorrow so I'll be in a better mood then !
:-)
Cheers, Ap.
As to the rest of you 'pirates'.. you're nothing of value or importance to
know let alone bid farewell to.
c.
chrisn...@gmail.com
for pc cubase sx is pretty solid.
thats my take on it..
from what ive read cubase on mac sucked from the first SX version untill Cubase 4 was released. Cubase 4 supported panther, tiger + leopard + maybe even snow leopard i think for powerpc + intel.. the sx versions before that were powerpc only + they were problematic..
cubase sx was more solid on pc i think