Well I'm a member of this forum and I'm not pleased with the direction the program is taking. I think PG took advantage of the dissatisfaction shown with the midi side of the product a few years back in a way gave him an eventual out- clause from midi altogether. But it wasn't 'no midi' that the program needed, but better midi.
Speculation abounded back then about how the program had not been written in a way that allowed for development of core midi functions in a cost-effective way without major knock-on effects.
I haven't the programming nous to comment on that and even if i had how would I know for sure? All I would like to see is a statement from PG that they do have the capability and the intention to develop the midi engine further because without that assurance why bother to ask for further changes?
For certain there's enough people who want to see 'real everything' with no tweakability or user defined parameters at all for PG to be able to ignore the midi guys completely and still say he's listening and keeping the customers satisfied.
Edited by alan S. (12/14/09 03:13 PM)