"Hey just taking this off-thread … for sure, if you’ve paid for something, you have a right to complain about the quality of it.
But all I’m pointing out is, JUCE8 and JUCE7 are two feet in the same boat. If you need JUCE8 features, they’re brand new. 6 months is nothing in a framework like this."
Don’t understand why you took this off thread?
I’m not really understanding the 2 feet in the same boat reference, so can’t comment on that.
But this is the point in a nuthshell:
“If you need JUCE8 features, they’re brand new”
We’re not talking about brand new features are we though? We’re not talking about WebViews or the animation module here. We’re talking about Windows performance for rendering. Now yes, this maybe “new” under the hood in the fact that it’s using Direct2D but most people don’t really care as long as it’s fit for purpose. Most people who have paid for the upgrade just want it to work as it did before, as good as it did before. I think that’s reasonable personally. And if it doesn’t match those expectations I also think it’s reasonable to have a “turn this all off until it works properly” switch - if that was the case then people could have happily taken the risk to move to the new rendering system in their own time when it wasn’t affecting them on a day-to-day basis.
Yes, it’s great that everyone can provide feedback on their use cases and this will eventually help solve all the problems, of course, but people should not be in the position of having to do that.
I’d like to revisit the “6 months is nothing for a framework like this” comment… realistically JUCE major version updates are 18-24 months so 6 months is at least 25% of a major release cycle - should people expect to wait 12 months down the line?, or for JUCE 9? if that’s the case then there should definitely have been a case for having a failsafe and going back to the old system.
Lucky I’m not cynical or I’d be saying that this release was pushed out too early to put some money in PACE’s coffers 