Robh, Raymb1,

Can you show the rest of us where you got the numbers?
Apparently you guys have access to information on the number of users who like the program to remain as it is, and the much smaller number of users who want changes. Rob, you even go so far as to say that you yourself have wishes, but you think you are a minority? Apart from the fact that each of you are just one person like everybody else, where are the figures to back up your claims?

Personally I find the comparison of BIAB or RB to Sonar a tad arrogant. The PG programs are not in the same league as the big DAWs are. PG products compare to DAWs as skelters compare to sportscars. (Video anyone?)
And that's forgetting that Cakewalk DID add functionality AND managed to make their DAW evolve with computer standards. They do use the registry, they do use context-sensitive menus, etc. etc. The complaining users over at the Cakewalk forums seem to be at a different level of computer literacy altogether, is my strong impression.

Another thing that I find confusing is the assumption Robh makes that improvements inevitably lead to years of pain to do a job, and loss of stability.. why is that? Are you suggesting that improvements are altogether impossible, or are you suggesting PG Music is incapable of doing a major upgrade without messing it up?

As you may have noticed, the complaints are not about flash over function. Everyone recognizes the value of parts generation by BIAB. What we just don't get is why having parts generation requires us to enter early-90s-UI-Hell.

People make suggestions to improve this software, and they should be taken seriously. How about a list of suggestions, and a poll to vote for them. If PG could step up and promise to implement the features that get the most votes, that would be great!

Oh and Rob, you don't become a veteran forum user by recording music...

Eddy