I would reach out to Nugen and see if they tested Nugen with 2018.7. if they are a developer and they are they shoud have access to it and tested it.

Marianna

I chek with another plugin:  TC electronic LM6 loudness radar  think same problemm 

Marty McLean:

The Wizard of Ounce:

HELP!!!!

My 'support' period ended on July 5, so I am unable to take advantage of the 'new features' that come with the '2018.7' version.

However, on searching for the link to the 'patch file' which will fix the eighteen bugs from the previous version i.e. 2018.5, I cannot find any reference to such a 'patch' file either in my account page or, indeed, this forum.

......

An Avid Support contract entitles you to one year of support and updates. Media Composer 2018.7 is an update, therefore you need a Support contract (if you own Media Composer) or subscription (if you rent Media Composer).

After your Support contract ends, you still own the Media Composer software you bought, you just cease to receive support and updates. You're still within the thirty day grace period, so you can renew your Support contract for a reduced price instead of purchasing a new one for full price.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

I was labouring-under the false belief that software 'bugs' were actually unintended faults in the software code that, again unintentionally, compromised the operational integrity of the software.

I now realise that insofar as Avid is concerned, 'bugs' are considered 'bonus features' which may or may not be welcomed by software-users; ergo, when a new MC 'update' is released one or more of these 'bonus features', which have proved to be unpopular with a small number of users, are removed - in this latest update, around FORTY 'bonus features'.

So when a new 'update' appears, the 'out of luck' ...I mean 'out of support', customers are left with a choice between keeping the pocketbook close to their chest and putting-up with a bug-ridden - and FORTY bugs does indeed warrant application of this term - version of Media Composer, OR, fork-over a wedge of cash to 'fix' the bugs that should never have been in the software in the first place.

...and, wow!, I can get a discount to do it.

I'm guessing that this rather questionable policy is designed to steer customers away from the 'perpetual licence' and in the direction of the 'subscription' service.

I'm not suggesting that Avid would deliberately introduce bugs into their MC code for questionable financial ends, but given the circumstances of the 'pay-up or bug-out' character of Avid's approach to bug-fixes, a reasonable person might understand how another reasonable person might start leaning toward the 'conspiracy' thing.

As stated above, I have no issue whatsoever with being obliged to pay for new features - but when, exactly, did it become a morally-acceptable practice to maneuver, or ransom, a customer into paying for bug-fixes that specifically address faults inherent to the version of MC software up to and including the most recent 'update' to which the customer had access (in my case 2018.5)?

Perhaps the customer should be grateful because they are getting software-bugs at no additional charge.

Software developers typically release product updates that include both feature improvements and bug fixes. We all know this from experience with virtually every software vendor. 

Some vendors have the purchasing model where you must explicitly purchase a new version which includes new features as well as bug fixes to the previous version. In this model you may receive free bug fix updates between paid-for versions but invariably there will be bugs that don't get fixed until the next paid-for update. 

i don't see this as being substantially different from Avid's model except that with Avid's model we get new features multiple times a year and the upgrade pricing (called a support contract) occurs at a predetermined date for each customer based on the anniversary of their contract.

You are probably aware of all of this and simply wanted to vent. Unfortunately you vented on someone who was only trying to help you by clarifying the support contract policy.

And for what it's worth, there is actually remarkably little software out there that is completely bug free.  Once you go beyond a very few lines of code you will inevitably introduce bugs, whether they are caused by problems with the design team's code, the code libraries that they use, or in their language compilers.  If a policy of retrospective free bug fixes was introduced into the IT industry it would collapse.

No one deliberately writes code to include bugs.  Why would they?  They would very quickly cease to exist as a business.  Apart from their thorough alpha and beta test programs, Avid's approach of updating software to provide new features and correct reported bugs is a realistic path to follow.  But you can't expect Avid to drop everything and come up with a custom patch to address a more or less obscure bug in version xx.yy of an application.  No large company would have the resources to spare for that.

jwrl:

And for what it's worth, there is actually remarkably little software out there that is completely bug free.  Once you go beyond a very few lines of code you will inevitably introduce bugs, whether they are caused by problems with the design team's code, the code libraries that they use, or in their language compilers.  If a policy of retrospective free bug fixes was introduced into the IT industry it would collapse.

No one deliberately writes code to include bugs.  Why would they?  They would very quickly cease to exist as a business.  Apart from their thorough alpha and beta test programs, Avid's approach of updating software to provide new features and correct reported bugs is a realistic path to follow.  But you can't expect Avid to drop everything and come up with a custom patch to address a more or less obscure bug in version xx.yy of an application.  No large company would have the resources to spare for that.

A 'bug' is not a 'feature'. A 'bug' is an error which compromises the operational integrity of the software.

Failure to fix such flaws (in this case thirty-nine (39) of the buggers) is akin to cheating the customer. Nobody would accept such an ethic from manufacturers of ANY consumer product - be it vehicle or household-good - yet 'softwware' is accepted as an exception. Why?

Actually, I can and do expect Avid to repair its faulty product when a customer actually parted with their cash in good faith. Avid demands integrity from the customer - to the point where the usage of said software is conditioned by all manner of 'security precautions' - but has no compunction about putting a cost on the fixing of acknowledged bugs.

It's a given that 'little software out there is completely bug-free'; but that's not the issue, is it? The core issue specifically relates to the determined refusal of Avid to issue a patch, or patches, for those bugs that have been identified in the intervening period between the release of 2015.5 and 2018.7 - the majority, if not all, being so-identified within one's 'support' period.

Are you suggesting that all thirty-nine bugs were identified, and fixed, on the morning of the release of 2018.7?

Come on now, this is a dodgy practice which is neither transparent or fair.

I may-well be venting, as another respondent has suggested, but this is not a diatribe about the 'support period' - this is a reasonable complaint about an aspect of the 'support period' which is actually unsupportable from a consumer perspective; and I am certain that I am not necessarily the only Avid customer who finds the refusal to provide fixes for bugs - which have been identified well-within an active period of 'support' - to be a demonstration of questionable integrity.

A case could be made that what you describe is unfair however it has become an accepted practice of the software industry as a whole and to single-out Avid in this regard is somewhat disingenuous. Having said this, Avid used to release patches for previous releases of software. They were one of the only companies I've ever worked with that adopted that practice. In my opinion it is unsustainable and could seriously compromise the company's ability to advance its product line. You, of course, are welcome to your opinion.

The Wizard of Ounce:

A 'bug' is not a 'feature'. A 'bug' is an error which compromises the operational integrity of the software.

Failure to fix such flaws (in this case thirty-nine (39) of the buggers) is akin to cheating the customer. Nobody would accept such an ethic from manufacturers of ANY consumer product - be it vehicle or household-good - yet 'softwware' is accepted as an exception. Why?

First and foremost, here's an extract from the Avid EULA:

"I. NO OTHER WARRANTIES.
The limited warranty is your only warranty from Avid. To the
extent permitted by law, Avid and its suppliers give no other express warranties,
guarantees, terms or conditions, including warranties that the software is error-free,
fault-tolerant, or uninterruptable. Where allowed by your local laws, Avid excludes implied
warranties, terms and conditions of merchantability, satisfactory quality, fitness for a
particular purpose and non-infringement. If your local laws give you any implied warranties,
guarantees or conditions, despite this exclusion, your remedies are described in Section G
(Remedy for Breach of Warranty) above, to the extent permitted by your local laws."

Almost every piece of software you use will likely carry the phrase "Not fit for warranty of merchantability" in it's EULA. Which, in short terms means that they won't guarantee that the software performs as expected. In other words, it's likely to have bugs.

The only piece of software of which I am aware that ever got completely through it's bug list is a database for the IBM mainframes, and it took over 20 years to reach that point.

wow this version is buggy!!! less responsive, etc... im going back to the previous version.

I could make a list but have to work.  You need working editors in that building testing the software rigerously.

Is there a way to disable live timeline?  Im wondering if this is making it buggy. Thank You

Ill edit this post as I find bugs throughout the day today.

nevermind, it just crashed... this version is getting uninstalled. 

I see the Pace driver delayed start service has not been sorted yet.

Has anyone tried 2018.7.1? Is it stable compared to your comments about being buggy? Looking to renew contract but concerned about continued bugs. No time in business, especially with what we do, for bugs. No time!

nymills:

Has anyone tried 2018.7.1?

2018.7.1 is a Mac only update. There is not a 2018.7.1 for PC. I only mention it because this is the PC forum and you've got a PC listed in your system specs.