I had purchased my copy about 2 years ago and since Acoustica had been around for over a decade and Sweetwater carried it,I thought it was a worthwhile purchase(though I had my trepidation about it,given the ridiculously low price).
I was also really desperate to find an affordable DAW that supported video and there were simply no other viable options.
Despite the low cost of it,I was still shocked at how insanely unstable it was,as whenever I added 3rd party plug-in's,it created a sh*t-storm of crashing issues.
It was so severe,that every few minutes or so,I had to constantly save my work,due to the consistent crashes and it got to a point where Mixcrap 6 was utterly unusable.
Some people claim,it's a mere matter of configuring your PC(hmmm,why didn't I think of that?)
...while others suggested that I make some radical modifications to my computer(actions of which,should only be done with a pro level of computer knowledge)..which is something I would not dream of doing,just to accommodate a poorly programmed DAW.Aside from the 3rd party VST issue,the video tracks caused just as much trouble and the meager selection of supported video formats were pathetic.
Logic dictates,that if video(alongside audio was DAW & computer friendly),then every developer would include this feature,no?
I did think though,that Acoustica's concepts and generous amounts of tutorials videos were fantastic,but even if I had found a way to make Mixcrap 6 run properly,why would anyone be required to work so hard,just to make it function without crashing every 90 seconds??
It's been my experience,that either poorly programmed DAW's and/or plug-in's,cause crashing,rather than the lack of computer optimization(and yet,every avid Mixcrap fan,claims it's the latter).
I mean...when plug-in's like Kontakt and Alchemy are causing a DAW to crash,it's evident that Mixcrap is the cause...though no Mixcrap fan-boy wants to admit it.
Perhaps I am mistaken,but it seems to me,that the people who claim Mixcrap is a solid program,are a small group of guitar players that for the most part,only use the included VST's and this is why they have success with Mixcrap.
I have no reason to doubt,that anyone like me,who primarily uses VST's to make music,will have a world of problems with Mixcrap 6.
Now...onto the main topic at hand....Mixcraft 7.I must admit,that Mixcraft 7 does look somewhat promising,as Acoustica is adding commercial hardware support,improved VST instruments and if I interpreted their YT video correctly,Mixcraft 7 will have a built in bit bridge(as yes,Mixcraft will finally have a 64 bit version).
As things are currently in my studio,I am very happy with using my Cyberlink PowerDirector 12(but this means creating only audio renderings with a tempo of 120bpm's,to make video editing simple and efficient)....so...if Mixcraft's video end of things,is improved,this will be a nice bonus.
I mean...if I can use Mixcraft 7 for 32 and 64 bit VST's AND video,this will be the perfect Swiss army knife of DAW's(but for this to actually happen,with a DAW that is a small fraction of the price of something like Pro Tools 11...it's painfully obvious,that this is extremely unlikely and to even speak of it as a possibility,seems insane to do so).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJeC4qgNs7U
Judging from the video they have added an integrated bridge for 32-bit plugins in 64-bit MC 
The step sequencer also seems nice, similar to the one in Traktion. But I still hope one can use external ones like the CK one as well now.
