PSA: do not beta test RE's on your only production machine

[EnochLight]

Just thought I'd post a friendly PSA that's likely common sense for most, but is often forgotten. For the love of all that is holy, do not beta test RE's (or anything for that matter!) on your sole production machine. Or, if you do choose to take part in such a venture, be aware that your projects - your entire ability to produce - can come to a grinding halt with no easy fix at any time.

I've just taken part in a conversation over at the Rack Extenionsists Facebook group where one user lost the ability to open any of his projects in any useful form because he's having trouble synchronizing licenses, and apparently used beta licenses in several song projects that were either meant for a client or were important production sessions for the user himself.

I think it's easy for people to forget that beta testing anything can cause massive problems on your machine, and the relative rock solid stability of Reason and the Rack Extension environment often makes people forget that there's risk involved when choosing to test.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass this along!

Cheers

[eusti]

Good point. To use beta REs in important projects is tricky... At times that can mess things up...

D.

[EnochLight]

To be fair, I'm not even sure if the aforementioned user has determined if it's a licensing server issue, a problem with his computer, or whether or not the beta licenses in question have expired in his projects. Regardless, I was just shocked to see someone using beta licenses at all for a paying gig!

[eusti]

I can understand wanting to try something "special" when you feel kind of stuck in a project...
But better do it on a parallel file (one that you have backed up sufficiently) and remember to bring over the changes into your main file just in case something bad unexpectedly happens!

D.

[rcbuse]

And beta testers of REs should never forget that the actual defintion of the device can easily change from beta version to version. Betas do not go though the propellerheads backwards compatibility check. So if a knob or parameter gets removed from beta 1 to beta 2, I don't think you even get the luxury of the busted/missing rack extension panel, I think your reason file saved with beta 1 just plain will not open.

[eusti]

And beta testers of REs should never forget that the actual defintion of the device can easily change from beta version to version. Betas do not go though the propellerheads backwards compatibility check. So if a knob or parameter gets removed from beta 1 to beta 2, I don't think you even get the luxury of the busted/missing rack extension panel, I think your reason file saved with beta 1 just plain will not open.

There was a workaround shared in a recent beta test group...
Will check if I can share it here!

D.

[GeiddE]

be very careful and wary that you can hose yourself up pretty good, and not in a cool kinda way

[Fretless Fingers]

And beta testers of REs should never forget that the actual defintion of the device can easily change from beta version to version. Betas do not go though the propellerheads backwards compatibility check. So if a knob or parameter gets removed from beta 1 to beta 2, I don't think you even get the luxury of the busted/missing rack extension panel, I think your reason file saved with beta 1 just plain will not open.

There was a workaround shared in a recent beta test group...
Will check if I can share it here!

D.

Yes, his is something I figured out when testing battle axe. When you delet the beta from the authorized, I recognizes it as a unavailable RE and uses the cardboard place holder. By simply removing the said devices instances in the song you can save and reopen it with no errors and the problem device gone from the project

[decibel]

yep, had a few issues with a big synth thats in beta right now, bit of shame really as its a great sounding device but i cant have it installed if i want to run reason at all

[EnochLight]

Looks like the user got things sorted. At the end of the day, a dev gave him NFR copies of his missing RE's out of the goodness of his heart, he reported his computer lost through tech support, and had all of his licenses wiped and re-authorized. I'm glad he got things sorted, but the discussion wasn't without its casualties.

/begin rant

Some people really have no manners.

/end rant

[eusti]

^ "NFR copies"? Could you elaborate, please! I thought all REs are NFR at the moment... Or are we not talking about Reason?

Glad it all got sorted though!

D.

[selig]

Just to clarify the thread title - it's not a bad idea to beta test REs on your main machine (I've been doing it for years for many devs including myself of course) as long as you are careful and organized.

But it CAN be a bad idea to use beta REs on SONGS that are important to you. Even then, it's not a given that you will have issues, but it definitely increases the possibility that a future version will cause song files that use the RE to not open, though there are some cases where tech support can help with these issues.

Also, it appears there WAS a relatively easy fix in this case, but still - use some common sense and pay attention to what you're doing (both are qualities expected of beta testers in the first place!).

[CharlyCharlzz]

^^this^^ , and if you want to save cash use demo's and work fast

[EnochLight]

^ "NFR copies"? Could you elaborate, please! I thought all REs are NFR at the moment... Or are we not talking about Reason?

Glad it all got sorted though!

D.

Hi,

Sorry - "NFR" is just a general term used for software licenses issued, usually for free (Not For Resale). I realize RE's can't be re-sold anyway, but I'm so used to using the term amongst software it just comes out when discussing RE's.

Cheers!

[EnochLight]

Just to clarify the thread title - it's not a bad idea to beta test REs on your main machine (I've been doing it for years for many devs including myself of course) as long as you are careful and organized.

But it CAN be a bad idea to use beta REs on SONGS that are important to you. Even then, it's not a given that you will have issues, but it definitely increases the possibility that a future version will cause song files that use the RE to not open, though there are some cases where tech support can help with these issues.

Also, it appears there WAS a relatively easy fix in this case, but still - use some common sense and pay attention to what you're doing (both are qualities expected of beta testers in the first place!).

Very good point, thanks for adding. Yeah, the fix was easy!

(..but it would have been easier had we had all of the facts before the lengthy thread and some wasting their time dolling out advice that wouldn't apply!)

[challism]

Here's a work around if a song file won't open after the beta is updated.

Go into authorizor and delete the beta. Then open your song and deleted all instances of the beta (which you shouldn't have installed anymore) and then save the song without the beta in it. <<before deleting, if you have any automation lanes, you may want to create a dummy placeholder track to copy/paste them to.>> Then, download the newest version of the beta, and reopen the song. You can then add the newest verions of the beta where you need it/originally had it (and repopulate the automation lanes, if you had any). And then save the song again.

It's a long work around, but if you don't want to lose the songs you worked on/saved with the old version of an RE beta, this will save your work.

[Theo.M]

betas have nothing to do with authoriser issues. the only thing that betas can do is crash the re if they are not stable, and within the stable reason shell.

I haven't had betas installed for months now (i did install one by accident but that authoriser update happened to go without a hitch) - and i have authoriser problems every day.

Whoever that poster is I would like to know him if he's interested so we can discuss our issues. I can guarantee it is just coincidence that it happened when he installed betas. You can not blame betas for the authoriser update license failure and i am sorry enoch but to even consider that is a bit misguided.

the reason he can't work is because the license update server is failing and he has projects that require RE's that can't work until the license update runs it's course successfully, so he can use his RE's.
Then everything will work fine, betas and all (except for possible crashes from the beta RE's themselves).

He's just in shock and has no idea what's going on and the blame went to the betas... props auth server is the worst it's ever been right now for me so it's feasible to think he is affected by the same (as are a few others I am already in contact with but I have been requested not to divulge those talks or info which I am happy to comply with).

and yes, props are on holidays LOL.

Edit info: 2 words changed.

[Theo.M]

By the way, the general topic headline is sound - it makes sense not to beta test Re's on your main production machine, but not for the reason's stated here sorry. Only for expected functionality and correct playback of prior projects using official versions of those RE's, and to avoid possible crashes within reason itself - they are the only logical reasons to avoid betas. A license is a license and is at the mercy of the authoriser no matter what "type" of license it is.

I truly believe there are hundreds of people around the world with this problem and it's all slowly going to come to light.

[ScuzzyEye]

I followed the discussion on FB. It wasn't anything related to license updates, or downloading REs. He was trying to work offline with an RE for which he only had a beta license. He acquired a full license, and everything worked fine.

[Theo.M]

I followed the discussion on FB. It wasn't anything related to license updates, or downloading REs. He was trying to work offline with an RE for which he only had a beta license. He acquired a full license, and everything worked fine.

ok well then it needs a better explanation which you have provided thanks.. it was made to sound like the typical license sync issues.

[tiker01]

I think testing of Re updates should be done by using a different channel than the stable release by renaming the device perhaps until the testing reaches release candidate status. This way the testers could use their beloved Res without any disturbance.

[thotbott]

The easy work around for this is just don't log in if you are using beta lisenses and remove them when they come up as the cardboard box thing

[EnochLight]

By the way, the general topic headline is sound - it makes sense not to beta test Re's on your main production machine, but not for the reason's stated here sorry..

I would never use a beta RE (or any beta software) in a paying gig, sorry. Well, unless I was being hired to test it or make a promo, then sure! But seriously, for all of the reasons mentioned by all already, I stand by that advice. And I still feel it risky to beta test any software on your only production machine, RE's included.

But.. this thread has been beat to death already.

[ScuzzyEye]

I think testing of Re updates should be done by using a different channel than the stable release by renaming the device perhaps until the testing reaches release candidate status. This way the testers could use their beloved Res without any disturbance.

The problem with this is none of the patches will load between the release and beta. This could be solved for .repatches with a search and replace. Messy, but doable. But it becomes impossible for the binary Combinators and template files. In the end it's more trouble than it's worth.

[tiker01]

I think testing of Re updates should be done by using a different channel than the stable release by renaming the device perhaps until the testing reaches release candidate status. This way the testers could use their beloved Res without any disturbance.

The problem with this is none of the patches will load between the release and beta. This could be solved for .repatches with a search and replace. Messy, but doable. But it becomes impossible for the binary Combinators and template files. In the end it's more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe PH should do something about it as it is not convenient to beta test Re-s on the expense of loosing access to the stable version.