Logic Pro 10.6 is out

am saying you're mistaken, not that you're deliberately making something up. that's hugely different.

 

I'm not mistaken. Every single bit I wrote is correct.

 

Good night. Or whatever.

my apologies. you're not mistaken. but you seem to be the only one who works this way, so... it's not a problem for others, and there are other ways of working.

 

don't be afraid of change; changing our work methods can lead to new ways of making music, and artists should always look for challenges; it's a great way to advance the quality of our work.

my apologies. you're not mistaken. but you seem to be the only one who works this way, so... it's not a problem for others, and there are other ways of working.

 

This isn't what it's all about. It's about broken things that never get fixed. Doesn't matter whether it's the zoom issue or PDC not working properly in some situations. Doesn't matter whether it's affecting just me. Or just you. Or neither of us. All that matters is that things don't get adressed over years.

This isn't what it's all about. It's about broken things that never get fixed. Doesn't matter whether it's the zoom issue or PDC not working properly in some situations. Doesn't matter whether it's affecting just me. Or just you. Or neither of us. All that matters is that things don't get adressed over years.

 

And then they chop you off so you have absolutely no hope that it will be fixed unless you buy a new computer...and even then its still just a maybe.

Sascha, getting real for a moment. How much harder would it be to move your mouse slightly lower in that example so that both regions DO zoom in to view? Presuming what Fuzzfilth posted is correct.

 

If the functionality of a feature has changed, it doesn't mean it's 'broken' - it's just progressed due to whatever circumstances, if they changed it to the way that -you- want, or it originally was, who's to say many others wouldn't now be negatively affected and complain that they're unable to zoom in to a single region quickly.

That's the whole issue, and I too would guess one could get used to it in seven years.

 

 

 

I will stop for now, seems as if people don't zoom much using this method - it simply got second nature to me in around 1.5 decades when it was working just great.

 

 

Unfortunlately I don't have 10.5 or 10.6 yet.

But I always use the ALT and mouse zoom met method. Is not everyone use this method? I thought everyone use this method as default.

Edited November 14, 2020 by just20

Wow, worst "Logic Pro X.xx is out" thread I ever saw here. A little more and we would be on Gearslutz...

 

Blink

Wow, worst "Logic Pro X.xx is out" thread I ever saw here. A little more and we would be on Gearslutz...

 

Blink

 

ha; terrifying thought. will stay out of it from here on out...

...oh!? not GS?!?!...sorry..../s~

Uhm, and I really wanted to stop this... but ok. I'll try to keep it as civil as it gets, I promise.

 

Sascha, getting real for a moment. How much harder would it be to move your mouse slightly lower in that example so that both regions DO zoom in to view? Presuming what Fuzzfilth posted is correct.

 

See, I want to zoom in on the upper region. But just slightly covering the lower region zooms in on that - even if roughly 82.7523% of the dragged rectangle are covering the upper region.

Besides, as said, while things are fine when you go from, say, a "normal arranging" zoom level to something more edit friendly, it's getting a lot more tricky on further zoom action. Like from "edit friendly" to "oh, I need to have a detailed look now". In that case, to really zoom in on both regions (which I often need to do for various reasons), you need to cover quite a wide screen/mouse range with the rectangle - like covering half of your screen heigth. I could post another video that would demonstrate this quite clearly (and another one for LP9).

 

If the functionality of a feature has changed, it doesn't mean it's 'broken' - it's just progressed due to whatever circumstances, if they changed it to the way that -you- want, or it originally was, who's to say many others wouldn't now be negatively affected and complain that they're unable to zoom in to a single region quickly.

 

Seriously, no offense, really, but I absolutely can't see how you would call a magnifying glass not focusing on what you cover with its lens a "progress" of any sorts. Besides, it wouldn't be any harder to quickly zoom in on a single region if it was working properly. It'd just be more exact. And I'd take a bet that, given the choice, people would rather prefer an exact magnifying lens - especially given that this is the way they work in each and every other application supporting such tools.

 

Apart from all that, there's still all the other zoom issues - which couldn't even be called "progress" after performing the most advanced brain twist. I mean, whether you need it or don't (I used it all the time), saved zoom levels per screenset are a good thing and not having that function anymore doesn't improve anyones workflow at all. It's just a perhaps-nice-to-have thing (or something way more relevant in my case) being poofed.

 

And fwiw, believe me, I have tried pretty much any other zoom method (such as keycommands, modifierkey + mousewheel) - and none of them allows me to do things as efficiently as I was doing them before. As said, the sheer excellence of the CTL/ALT-zoom has been an incredibly large part of my working efficiency.

 

Anyhow, I only used this example to demonstrate that there's things that are broken (or at least *way* less elegantly implemented) ever since LPX was born. There's several more. Don't even get me started on screensets using linked editors... or the mentioned small audio regions that you can't move anymore unless you zoom *way* in (which then causes all the mentioned zoom issues...).

 

And finally: No, even if Jay Asher will never stop telling people how I am just a little mean and nasty boy with very little of a clue, I am defenitely *not* complaining for complaining's sake. I am complaining because I want Logic to be a kickass program that I can continue using as long as possible. Which is why I am as well reporting pretty much all of my findings on Apple's feedback form, too. Which is why I also try to explain things in detail in case someone's asking. And which, fwiw, was also why I've been a betatester back in the days, putting *lots* of effort into it (which quite sometimes paid off) without any profit but the program improving. It's also why I may appear somewhat allergic towards people telling me it's a personal issue - even in case it's clearly a program related fault (and yes, quite obviously I'm sometimes dead wrong, but I always admit being wrong, it's a matter of good manners).

 

Ok, I'll defenitely stop for now.

Guys they finally listened!!!!!!!!!

 

- Resolves an issue where Catch Playhead sometimes unexpectedly activates in the Piano Roll own editing notes during playback.

 

By activate, did you mean it starts playing back on its own?

 

No, the playhead will catch when you're on cycle mode even when you have catch playhead turned off. It said it was fixed in the release notes but it's definitely still not fixed

So now I can't install Logic Pro 10.6 on my Mojave workstation. Ridiculous. I just checked, if I upgrade to Catalina I would need to get a new display calibrator($200) and 2x hardware updates for my Metric Halo interfaces. That's another $1000.

 

My Mojave setup works great, I have no need for Catalina. The only interesting improvement is sidecar, but that won't work with my 5 year old iPad.

 

So if I decide to update(lots of rough edges in 10.15.1) I need to spend $1200 to replace stuff that still works great and does what I want it to do? Will there be more bugfixes for 10.5.1?

 

AFAIK, all other DAWs still work on Mojave, so this is a deliberate move to force us to upgrade. Why? Do we need more landfills full of obsolete but perfectly working hardware?

So now I can't install Logic Pro 10.6 on my Mojave workstation. Ridiculous. I just checked, if I upgrade to Catalina I would need to get a new display calibrator($200) and 2x hardware updates for my Metric Halo interfaces. That's another $1000.

 

My Mojave setup works great, I have no need for Catalina. The only interesting improvement is sidecar, but that won't work with my 5 year old iPad.

 

So if I decide to update(lots of rough edges in 10.15.1) I need to spend $1200 to replace stuff that still works great and does what I want it to do? Will there be more bugfixes for 10.5.1?

 

AFAIK, all other DAWs still work on Mojave, so this is a deliberate move to force us to upgrade. Why? Do we need more landfills full of obsolete but perfectly working hardware?

 

you can continue to work, just as you did the day before (what rough edges are you experiencing in 10.5.1?). this is how tech works, it's not a new situation. and it's not personally directed at you. eventually, updated apps require new minimum OSes. so you update, or you use what you have, and can still make the quality of music you're used to.

so this is a deliberate move to force us to upgrade.

 

No one is forcing you to upgrade.

 

See mmm42's earlier post in this thread for some very sensible advice about whether to choose to update or not.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=153272&start=180#p802509

Any news on what plugs are not working?

Any news on what plugs are not working?

 

i've spent 2 days troubleshooting my amazon tv stick, and my new iphone, so.... not ready to dive back into big sur, but will do so soon(ish), and report back. so, anyone on big sur, let us know about 3rd-party plugins! am hoping this is working again (someone elsewhere told me his vanished plugins came back in a late beta)...

I'm getting almost daily emails from plugin software developers saying don't update to Big Sur, their products are not yet Big Sur compatible etc.

 

Rather than get a list of what isn't working, it's probably more productive to review what software you have, and check with your developers whether it does work or not.

 

But this is a first few days release of a new OS system - if you rely on lots of third-party software, you'd be crazy (imo/e!) to want to jump in now, or be willing to put up with many things you rely on not working for an indeterminate length of time...

No more Language option in Preferences>General>Display.

Can't run my beloved Logic Pro software in Chinese or Japanese anymore...

I wish Apple would give the Logic dev team just a itty bitty tiny fraction of the iPhone budget.

So now I can't install Logic Pro 10.6 on my Mojave workstation. Ridiculous. I just checked, if I upgrade to Catalina I would need to get a new display calibrator($200) and 2x hardware updates for my Metric Halo interfaces. That's another $1000.

 

My Mojave setup works great, I have no need for Catalina. The only interesting improvement is sidecar, but that won't work with my 5 year old iPad.

 

So if I decide to update(lots of rough edges in 10.15.1) I need to spend $1200 to replace stuff that still works great and does what I want it to do? Will there be more bugfixes for 10.5.1?

 

AFAIK, all other DAWs still work on Mojave, so this is a deliberate move to force us to upgrade. Why? Do we need more landfills full of obsolete but perfectly working hardware?

 

you can continue to work, just as you did the day before (what rough edges are you experiencing in 10.5.1?). this is how tech works, it's not a new situation. and it's not personally directed at you. eventually, updated apps require new minimum OSes. so you update, or you use what you have, and can still make the quality of music you're used to.

 

The $1.000.000 question remains: why on earth should we have a major OS update for our computers every year? Who wants this? Catalina was a mess, now we march on to Big Sur. Probably great for Apple, but not for me as a customer.

 

you can continue to work, just as you did the day before (what rough edges are you experiencing in 10.5.1?). this is how tech works, it's not a new situation. and it's not personally directed at you. eventually, updated apps require new minimum OSes. so you update, or you use what you have, and can still make the quality of music you're used to.

 

The $1.000.000 question remains: why on earth should we have a major OS update for our computers every year? Who wants this? Catalina was a mess, now we march on to Big Sur. Probably great for Apple, but not for me as a customer.

 

am having a stellar experience in catalina, on my imac, running logic & FCP.

 

who determines a 'stopping point'? should we all still be on 10.6 or something, forever? lastly, no one forces you to update; you can work today just as you did yesterday. so, not sure what the problem is...

Everytime the same story...

 

Apple is really not bad at supporting hardware - doing recalls for 5y old machines, which is beyond any warranty or consumer law in the world for example, is purely customer service.

How old machines do you guys want apple to support? Catalina and 10.6 is supported on 2012 Macs... that's soon going to be decade old machines. How much backward compatibility is enough?

- "just this machine i personally use now"

- "Every machine up to 2000"

 

You can't take performance advantage of new hardware if you need to keep maintaining stuff for old hardware.

 

That said, has anyone tried running 10.6 on Mojave and changing the minimum OS version flag in info.plist?

That used to work for 10.4 and mojave i think.. i forgot which was problematic

That said, has anyone tried running 10.6 on Mojave and changing the minimum OS version flag in info.plist?

 

Yes, I tried it. Doesn't work I'm afraid (not that I expected it to...)

 

The $1.000.000 question remains: why on earth should we have a major OS update for our computers every year? Who wants this? Catalina was a mess, now we march on to Big Sur. Probably great for Apple, but not for me as a customer.

 

am having a stellar experience in catalina, on my imac, running logic & FCP.

 

who determines a 'stopping point'? should we all still be on 10.6 or something, forever? lastly, no one forces you to update; you can work today just as you did yesterday. so, not sure what the problem is...

 

Updates, fine. I will even happily pay for these. Arbitrary drawing a line for no good reason, bad. IMO, an OS should be a reliable and relatively slow moving framework (that runs on older and new hardware) that enables me to use the applications that I like/need. Let me decide when it is time to upgrade hardware and software.

 

am having a stellar experience in catalina, on my imac, running logic & FCP.

 

who determines a 'stopping point'? should we all still be on 10.6 or something, forever? lastly, no one forces you to update; you can work today just as you did yesterday. so, not sure what the problem is...

 

Updates, fine. I will even happily pay for these. Arbitrary drawing a line for no good reason, bad. IMO, an OS should be a reliable and relatively slow moving framework (that runs on older and new hardware) that enables me to use the applications that I like/need. Let me decide when it is time to upgrade hardware and software.

 

I think there is a reasonable time to expect backward compatibility and an unreasonable one. It isn't a life sentence for software and hardware developers. I had a 2013 iMac i7, which was not going to be Big Sur compatible.So it was 7 years old. Now I am on a 2018 Mac mini because I need Big Sur compatibility to help my clients who will be on it.

 

If in 2025 it is no longer compatible with the latest OS I will not feel aggrieved, personally.

I can still go there, but a couple of things tell me that I can stand pat on my current machine and Mojave. Rosetta 2, though I have no clue what if any discernible change in 'snappiness' of my current rig that will bring. The other thing is, What I've got is more than enough for my current needs. It's another way to get off the 'must upgrade' carousel. I understand that's different for people who stay current for business reasons, anyone else it's basically a fetish.

IMO, an OS should be a reliable and relatively slow moving framework (that runs on older and new hardware) that enables me to use the applications that I like/need. Let me decide when it is time to upgrade hardware and software.

 

that isthe point, that these things are decided by the companies that make the apps, the tech. they can't just accomodate your needs; how would that work for every individual with their own set of needs?

 

"IMO" is fine, it's just not a business concept.

The $1.000.000 question remains: why on earth should we have a major OS update for our computers every year? Who wants this?

+1

The $1.000.000 question remains: why on earth should we have a major OS update for our computers every year? Who wants this?

+1

 

that's 2 people right here who don't want yearly OS updates. am sure, as soon as apple sees this thread, they'll change their ways...

I would love to see 3 year cycles with macOS updates. Think of the stability we would see! One can dream right?