I’ve updated both Renoise and Reaper recently, using Vista 32bits home premium. Here are some reflections I want to share with you guys, and maybe I can get some feedback from you as well?
I think it would be preferrable if Renoise by default was installed to a folder simply called “Renoise” in contrast to “Renoise 2.1.0” and so forth. If it automatically detected my previous install and suggested this as the default folder then it would feel more like an upgrade than a reinstall.
For instance, Reaper installs as “…\reaper” and also by default installs to the folder reaper is presently installed in (Like D:\music\programs\reaper in my case). By doing it this way you would keep custom files neatly rounded up in the same folder.
Why not do this for renoise as well? This way it would look up the present folder and install it there by default. If one folder for example is to be deleted upon install of a new version, unlikely as that seems, it would be possible to just rename the folder as “_old” or something and leave it there for the users to decide.
Of course there may be different opinions on this, but I just wanted to give my say on this, as the thought have crossed my mind every time I’ve updated Renoise.
Also, I want to stress that this is no BIG issue for me, but hey… this program is basically nearing
perfection now, so why not make it even more perfect imho
I want to take the opportunity to thank the Renoise team immensly for this brilliant program. I bow my head in awe.
there are a couple of reasons for which I do not favour this idea:
beta stage: when Renoise is under beta stage, people usually continue to work on their songs using the stable version, but also like to experiment with the newer version. Also, it’s quite likely that a song which has been saved with a newer version will be not readable with the older ones, so it’s quit better to have clear distinction between these versions
backward incompatibility: this is a weaker argument as this problem last occurred during 1.91 to 2.0 transition. There have been some changes into the Renoise engine which make older songs play differently on newer versions, so people may like to have multiple versions installed to avoid problems
personally, as a team member, I prefer to have more than one version of Renoise installed, and for the dev team the argument 1) is also true during alpha stage (i.e.: almost all the time ), and I think that the best default option is the one which is now. I know it’s different from the usual applications default scheme, but Renoise is different
I see your point regarding beta (and alpha) stages, and I have considered this before I made the post.
My question is: What if you label the latest stable version as merely “Renoise” and the beta/alpha with the version number + a or b included in the folder name?
Regarding your second point, I also see how that CAN be an issue to some people. It should be possible to install two seperate versions, but I feel that having an “in-program” upgrade option would have been practical and cool for some of us as well. Maybe the engine should merely have an option to “update” for those who prefer that?
Like I said. No biggie at all, but its none the less how I personally feel about this. As an “end user” I prefer my system to be tidy, and I also prefer not to use betas when I can avoid it (depending on the beta stage of course). Doing all this manually isnt something which require much skill. People who cant do this probably have nothing to do in a tracker. Its more the aspect of not having to even consider where to install next update and so forth.
I must also include the fact that Reaper is updated so many times per month that its a necessity for that program to install to the same folder. Otherwise it would be total chaos.
Anyways, I just wanted to try to influence you guys, but I didnt expect you to agree
Btw, I heard some stuff you wrote a while ago It-alien. I liked it. Inspiring stuff.
I don’t believe that, and if it’s true it would be a shame, since beta’s have always been sooo stable. The only reason to not use a beta is the nag screen, otherwise it’s just missing out for no good reason.
But you can always install older versions at any point in time.
I have “\Renoise”, which is always the current one, and “\Renoise15” and “\Renoise191” because I have tunes that 'need 'em.
Let’s say 2.2 comes out, I overwrite “/Renoise” which currently is 2.1 with version 2.2.
I load a current tune and notice it sounds differently. Null problemo, I head on over to the backstage and grab 2.1 if I don’t still have it around, install it to “/Renoise21” and that’s that.
But that is the exception, the rule is having to correct Renoise on it’s choice to create a new directory whenever you install an update. Not that I mind, but I noticed the change (IIRC the installer behaved as the poster described until not so long ago?) and thought “meh”.
Believe what you desire but as a Team member and speaking about software in general regarding Beta i will not backup this thought: there are always things that even the Alpha team could not detect during testing simply because no one of the team had the plugins or environment that could create a crash-risky situation.
A Beta is a Beta because the software has not been thoroughly tested so there is no high guarantee that a crash is the least possible factor.
And if you edited a few songs and overwritten the old songs with the latest beta version, you are reasonably screwed when new feature usage is written along with it if there is a reason that you have to fall back to the last stable version and simply cannot continue using the latest Beta.
Specially if these involve projects that inquire a deadline and you suddenly come depending on the mercy of the developer to whip out a Beta version that hopefully fixes the problem else you are in deep sh*t.
The only thing is that when shit happens:the developer gets the responsibility.
In practice we can hide behind Pareto’s law which say that there is 90% chance disaster won’t happen but you have a 10% chance that the world will end as you know it.
But if you decide to secure your theory with Pareto, Murphy is always around the corner to play your party-pooper.
Originally yes, the 90/10 was from someone else, but it has been stolen from Pareto anyway, i would like to keep referring to the original creator of the idea, the folks who did additional research do usually not matter to me.
Yeah, but that’s still theory! Beta is just a name. People name stuff beta when they feel it needs testing, and they name it release when they feel it has got enough testing. It’s still people doing that labeling, so it’s more important to actually look at the app, the devs and the history - than at the label.
It’s like crossing the street nilly-willy. Yes, when a car screeches around the corner with 300 mph you’re screwed… but since in practice that hardly ever happens, people would lose more if they’d always stood still at red lights while the street is totally empty… it adds up, and people aren’t dumb when they make that choice, they’re simply being real life people weighing the benefits.
I think some of you guys have lost track of the “end user” segment here, but ok. Not all of us are beta/alpha testers, and certainly if I had a deadline I would stay about 50 miles away from any beta. And like Johann said, it wouldnt be a big problem to reinstall the the previous version. However, I do see your points.
I just wanted to say how I feel about it is all, and felt that since I love the program as much as I do I wanted to give some input how to make it even more polished imo. Its like the boxes of those good old text adventures in the 80s. They had to make a package that users liked instantly by making it look like a suitcase or whatever. Not exactly the same thing, but I think you know what I mean
It leaves that choice up to you… if you desire to update your 2.x.x.x beta folder with the final edition, so be it.
If you want it elsewhere, you’ll have to manually pick the target location.
Perhaps for a final edition your idea may fit, but not for a Beta.
And yes Johann:a Beta is just a tag but it is also a sort of protection for the developer because you don’t have any warranties when using a Beta, not in practical sense neither in legal sense… the last part it the most important one, if shit happens on your PC because of a Beta, the consequence was part of a risk you dared to take. With a Final there are a bit more expectations and obligations that are not easily waived by a disclaimer.
Yes, about that, when I installed RNS2.1 beta2, opened it, and then later clicked on the windows start menu, it showed two instances in my program list both saying “Renoise.” When you have the beta versions out you should have them so that the stable version says “Renoise” and the beta says “Renoise (beta2)” (or maybe just put the version names in the title). Small but helpful fix.