MAGIX business practice of only including 1 year of updates for a one-off license is absolutely pointless when 3-6 months are spent being a beta tester for the product.
I would suggest that you always wait six months after a product's release before buying it, so you can easily skip the “beta phase.”
Walter
MAGIX business practice of only including 1 year of updates for a one-off license is absolutely pointless when 3-6 months are spent being a beta tester for the product.
I would suggest that you always wait six months after a product's release before buying it, so you can easily skip the “beta phase.”
Walter
That would be ideal. However, a user would then only receive 6 months of updates.
If you don't want one thing or the other, then you're trying to square the circle—I wish you the best of luck with that!👍
Walter
There is only one thing wrong with Vegas, and that is the bug fix update cycle. They wait to long between bug fix releases. Just look at the sheer number of fixes in each release. To many for one release. They should bring out more releases in-between (with obviously fewer bugs fixed) than is the case now. Reason for it is the chances of introducing a regression bug is always present, and having more releases can rectify such bugs faster.
Anyway that is my personal opinion.
It would be preferable if VEGAS was 1 year of updates from the day of purchase as the version # aren't really in sync with the development cycle anyway.
Do you know which ring is a square?