Presonus : "So we are targeting 3-4 "major" feature releases every year..."

[dastewart]

I have to confess that I've changed my mindset over the past year. Rather than seeing myself on the Studio One roadmap I simply think that I'll choose the best DAW for me at any particular point in time.

At the moment it's S1 v6 because I know it inside out, it's stable and there's no other DAW which offers enough extra to make me move.

And that includes S1 v7 (which offers me nothing tbh).

If at some point Presonus, or Steinberg, or any other DAW manufacturer make a product that offers something better, then I'll have to weigh up the extra/improved features against the cost and aggravation of moving but what I've learnt over the past year is that S1 v6 does everything I need (and more).

I'll keep an eye on what's going on in the DAW world but I've come to realise that if I never change or upgrade my DAW then that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Crossinger]

I'll keep an eye on what's going on in the DAW world but I've come to realise that if I never change or upgrade my DAW then that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

This might become more and more a problem for the vendors in the future: if the code base and the underlying OS are stable enough, there is no real *need* for an upgrade. I’ll probably benefit from the Apple Silicon optimizations in v7. But then I can only hope that future macOS versions don’t include breaking changes. (Stick with old OS versions is not really an option and a security nightmare these days.)

[lfm]

(Stick with old OS versions is not really an option and a security nightmare these days.)

"nightmare" is a strong word, is this verified somehow?

Oldest trick in the book to control peoples behavior is to scare them.
- use this fear to control them
- make them pay for things they don't need

Let's say Windows 10 is all safe when updates stop(prolonged a year as I understand)
- then it would not matter, no virus or trojan horses, ransomeware can attack, right?

So if you stay with Windows 10 as last updated it will be safe, or?
- this is what MS among others wants us to not believe, isn't it?

Be on update program and you will be safe, right?
- if not it's a hoax anyway

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is
- making things more convenient for users and automate for them, these are the risks
- cross connections and sync features to make all your privacy gone to the cloud
- so you can access them from any device

If MS not 35 years after Windows 3 have managed to make a safe OS, what are the odds they are safe now just because they say so
- see to that Windows updates run, or you are unsafe????

But keep people afraid, and money is rolling in.....to take a car analogy adjust speed after road and weather conditions and you are alright...be cautious what freeware you download and from where and you will be safe....just think about things a bit....."nightmare", come on.....

[gwing]

This thread is so sad. Let’s hope 2026 brings some good things for the Studio One users!

[starflakeprj]

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is

I’d argue the opposite. An unpatched OS, by definition, contains more known vulnerabilities than a fully updated and patched one. Even if new features can theoretically increase the attack surface, the risk from known, weaponized vulnerabilities in an unpatched system is objectively higher. Potential vulnerabilities in newly released features are, at that point, largely hypothetical.

[lfm]

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is

I’d argue the opposite. An unpatched OS, by definition, contains more known vulnerabilities than a fully updated and patched one. Even if new features can theoretically increase the attack surface, the risk from known, weaponized vulnerabilities in an unpatched system is objectively higher. Potential vulnerabilities in newly released features are, at that point, largely hypothetical.

#1. How is that opposite of what I said?
#2. You talk about "unpatched", Windows 10 is patched now for 10 years????
- so open for weaponized attacks still?
#3. How much is a new release tested, even an update?

I had an update on Windows 11 that suddenly made all fonts on desktop bold, and the setting for 3D shadows(or what it's called) were not funtioning anymore.
- fixed in the next update

Was it 24H2 of Windows 11 that suddenly made people with usb audio interfaces having serious problems?

It's the same with Xbox, MS does not test nearly enough to regard as "update".
- suddenly people had their racing wheels not working anymore
- so another month until that was fixed

Let's release this, we can always send another update later, kind of reasoning.

What would the incentives for MS be to really make the OS safe?
- I'd say none

Make people believe they are "under attack" and MS can interfere as they please intruding in people's privacy.

I turned off updates a year ago in Windows 11, it's offline anyway.
- if it works, don't fix it, as they say

You cannot roll everybody's computer in bubble wrap, teach users not to walk into things instead.
- a paraphraze of Bill Maher with Jordan Peterson as guest

04:55 in if not waning to spend 10 minutes of a great conversation

[concealed identity]

Yikes

[Trancit]

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is

I’d argue the opposite. An unpatched OS, by definition, contains more known vulnerabilities than a fully updated and patched one. Even if new features can theoretically increase the attack surface, the risk from known, weaponized vulnerabilities in an unpatched system is objectively higher. Potential vulnerabilities in newly released features are, at that point, largely hypothetical.

Any proof for that??
The first thing I do is turning off all Windows updates as soon as I got a running system...
I never use any virus scanner at all...
And yet in 27 years of internet usage I have still to see the first Virus/Malware to enter my system in a way that it´s noticeable at all...

It´s exactly what lfm wrote: they control people by fear ... they create virus scanners with heuristics that identify the worst viruses in even clean factory releases...

How does it come that without any protection at all and foremost without any "security patching" being online 24/7 I was never affected by all that "danger and risks"??

If it would be that crucial as many tell I must fight all day with attacks... but I don´t!

[starflakeprj]

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is

I’d argue the opposite. An unpatched OS, by definition, contains more known vulnerabilities than a fully updated and patched one. Even if new features can theoretically increase the attack surface, the risk from known, weaponized vulnerabilities in an unpatched system is objectively higher. Potential vulnerabilities in newly released features are, at that point, largely hypothetical.

Any prove for that??
The first thing I do is turning off all Windows updates as soon as I got a running system...
I never use any virus scanner at all...
And yet in 27 years of internet usage I have still to see the first Virus/Malware to enter my system in a way that it´s noticeable at all...

It´s exactly what lfm wrote: they control people by fear ... they create virus scanners with heuristics that identify the worst viruses in even clean factory releases...

How does it come that without any protection at all and foremost without any "security patching" being online 24/7 I was never affected by all that "danger and risks"??

If it would be that crucial as many tell I must fight all day with attacks... but I don´t!

Your personal experience is not evidence. Not noticing malware does not mean your system hasn't been compromised, it only means nothing obvious happened. Modern malware is designed to be silent. Credential theft, persistence, botnet enrollment and lateral movement routinely run for months or years without visible symptoms.

Disabling updates does not reduce risk. It locks the system into a state with known, publicly documented and often weaponized vulnerabilities that attackers already know how to exploit

Yes, new features can increase the attack surface. But an unpatched system massively increases the probability of successful exploitation. Risk is attack surface × exploitability × exposure.

Security is not about fear. It's about asymmetry, the attacker needs to succeed once, the defender every time.

Finally, if you don't work with cybersecurity or threat modeling, you might want to be careful making absolute claims about things you clearly don't have insight into. Anecdotes are not a substitute for domain knowledge.

Edit: I've worked close to ten years helping organizations stay secure. Enterprise and personal security aren't identical, but the fundamentals are the same. Known vulnerabilities are riskier than hypothetical ones, and unpatched systems increase exposure. The difference is scale and impact, not basic security principles.

Edit 2: If you haven't experienced malware in 27 years, that likely says more about your personal habits than about the threat landscape. Avoiding suspicious links and attachments already removes a large part of the risk. But not everyone has that awareness or discipline, which is exactly why patching and basic security controls still matter.

[starflakeprj]

I'd say they introduce new features in new Windows 11(as example) that are not properly checked before released!!!!!
- this is where the big risk is

I’d argue the opposite. An unpatched OS, by definition, contains more known vulnerabilities than a fully updated and patched one. Even if new features can theoretically increase the attack surface, the risk from known, weaponized vulnerabilities in an unpatched system is objectively higher. Potential vulnerabilities in newly released features are, at that point, largely hypothetical.

#1. How is that opposite of what I said?
#2. You talk about "unpatched", Windows 10 is patched now for 10 years????
- so open for weaponized attacks still?
#3. How much is a new release tested, even an update?

I had an update on Windows 11 that suddenly made all fonts on desktop bold, and the setting for 3D shadows(or what it's called) were not funtioning anymore.
- fixed in the next update

Was it 24H2 of Windows 11 that suddenly made people with usb audio interfaces having serious problems?

It's the same with Xbox, MS does not test nearly enough to regard as "update".
- suddenly people had their racing wheels not working anymore
- so another month until that was fixed

Let's release this, we can always send another update later, kind of reasoning.

What would the incentives for MS be to really make the OS safe?
- I'd say none

Make people believe they are "under attack" and MS can interfere as they please intruding in people's privacy.

I turned off updates a year ago in Windows 11, it's offline anyway.
- if it works, don't fix it, as they say

You cannot roll everybody's computer in bubble wrap, teach users not to walk into things instead.
- a paraphraze of Bill Maher with Jordan Peterson as guest

04:55 in if not waning to spend 10 minutes of a great conversation

The point is not whether updates can introduce bugs, they obviously can. The point is that bugs and security vulnerabilities are two different risk categories.

Windows 10 is already out of standard support. Microsoft do offer one extra year of security updates via Extended Security Updates, free if you actively enroll, but it’s temporary. Without ESU, new vulnerabilities are never fixed.

Yes, Microsoft updates sometimes break things. That is a quality and testing problem, not an argument against security patching. Stability issues are visible and annoying. Security issues are usually invisible until they are abused.

As for incentives, Microsoft's business depends on trust from enterprises and governments. Large customers do not accept an OS that is demonstrably unsafe, and regulatory pressure and liability reinforce that. For individuals though, the incentives are weaker, which is why security defaults, automatic updates and baseline protections exist. Not to control users, but to reduce risk at scale when perfect user behavior cannot be assumed.

Teaching users to be careful is good, but security models are never built on perfect user behavior. Not everyone has the same awareness or discipline, which is exactly why patching and baseline protections exist.

Saying “it works, don't fix it” only applies to functionality. It does not apply to known security flaws that others already know how to exploit.

Edit: I absolutely agree with the point(s) made in the video. People do learn by being exposed to the real world, not by being shielded from every challenge. The same applies to viruses and bacteria. We build resilience through normal exposure, but we still vaccinate, treat infections and avoid known, preventable risks.

But that reasoning does not translate to cybersecurity. Security engineering does not assume perfect users or learning through failure. It assumes mistakes will happen and reduces risk by removing known weaknesses

Teaching users to be careful is important. Leaving known vulnerabilities unpatched is not a learning exercise, it's just unnecessary exposure.

[Trancit]

Your personal experience is not evidence. Not noticing malware does not mean your system hasn't been compromised, it only means nothing obvious happened. Modern malware is designed to be silent. Credential theft, persistence, botnet enrollment and lateral movement routinely run for months or years without visible symptoms....

I understand...
Testing and finding a result is no evidence... but some scaring words without proving anything is...
Great ideology!

[stanft]

I work in software development for 30 years now. And I can assure you: Operating systems are so complex that there will always be some kind of vulnerability.

In software development, there is a common sense that „if your software has no fault, it only means that you haven’t found it yet“.

[stanft]

And if you want proof: The latest zero day exploit in Windows 10 was found in November 2025 (Kernel-Zero-Day (CVE-2025-62215)). Is this will not be the last one.

[Trancit]

And if you want proof: The latest zero day exploit in Windows 10 was found in November 2025 (Kernel-Zero-Day (CVE-2025-62215)). Is this will not be the last one.

The proof for me would be that something bad would happen to my system... not some obscure there might be this or that, that could happen eventually under circumstances X or Y in the following 10ms if user does this or that but just when the moon is shining toghether with the sun and Jupiter is in correlation with Mars on days with more than 24 hours...

I can only tell you:
I never did update Windows 95 ... never had a problem with my machine
I never updated Windows 8...never had a problem
I never updated Windows 10...never had a problem
I never updated Windows 11...never had a problem
I never used a virus scanner... never had a problem
I always just used the inbuild Windows firewall while this might be BS as well...

But I have read tons over tons of complaints people having updated and had nothing but problems...

This is enough proof for me that every statement for private PC´s to steady be "updated and protected to not immediately get infected" is nothing but hot air not matter what they state alledgly to have found which must be fixed...
You can stating in one hand and spitting in the other... let´s see which hand is full first!

[starflakeprj]

Your personal experience is not evidence. Not noticing malware does not mean your system hasn't been compromised, it only means nothing obvious happened. Modern malware is designed to be silent. Credential theft, persistence, botnet enrollment and lateral movement routinely run for months or years without visible symptoms....

I understand...
Testing and finding a result is no evidence... but some scaring words without proving anything is...
Great ideology!

Why are you asking for “proof” about something you clearly don't understand? It wouldn't matter if I posted ten links to documented incidents from recent years. You've already made up your mind.

You'd dismiss Microsoft because “they can't be trusted”, reject Wikipedia because “anyone can write anything there”, and move the goalposts again.

At that point, this isn't skepticism or critical thinking. It's just refusing to accept any source that contradicts your preconceived conclusion.

But I'll give you two links..

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issu ... rime-tool/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/us ... ostealers/

I'll leave this discussion here. There's no point in arguing with someone who chooses to remain ignorant.