Pros & Cons of various macro utilties: QK vs KM vs CM vs ??

stubbsonic · Post by **stubbsonic** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:10 am

Rather than hi-jack another thread, I decided to start a new one, specifically about programs that automate routines, aka macro programs. I invite users of these programs and others to offer some impressions, pros/cons, etc. about these tools.

They are often referred to on this forum as big problem solvers-- ways to get things done when the software lacks a certain, task-specific feature.

Folks here use macro programs along with several other utilities to remap keys, capture new gestures from track pads, and otherwise devise new ways of working quickly and efficiently.

Quickeys has been fairly popular with the hardcore DP users, but has a rather complicated back-story that ultimately leaves it as all-but-abandonware. (please correct me if I'm wrong about this). Keyboard Maestro has been brought up as a viable alternative. And a recent post from Dwetmaster, introduced me to Controller Mate which in addition to building various processes from input devices and MIDI, has a rather impressive list of side features that might allow me to replace a few other pieces of software.

Ultimately, the goal of this thread is to help align people with specific needs, workflow and learning styles to the right software for them (and me). Also to get a sense of what software might be resilient for the next few years of OS upheavals.

MIDI Life Crisis · Post by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:19 am

I hadn't heard of Controller Mate but a quick look at the site makes me eager to give it a spin. My biggest problem with these macro apps is not so much with them as with the Logitech solar (and other) keyboards. Some keys are proprietary and just can't be remapped so you loose a few otherwise useful keys for different macros. Also if CM can also handle my mouse and track pad macros I'd like having it all in one app. If it works I'll dump KM. QK is already gone as it is seriously deficient in Yosemite.

Great idea for a thread stubsonic. Thanks. I wonder if Shoosh will hop in? At least for Easter.

OB Ken · Post by **OB Ken** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:37 am

Proprietary buttons on keyboards often simply have “vendor-specific” definitions that third-party software can’t make uninformed assumptions about. Compatibility with them can sometimes be added to the software, but we need to know that the buttons exist and what activity they generate. That needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to trackpads, ControllerMate may see basic mouse-like movement and button inputs, but won’t handle the higher-level touches and gestures.

stubbsonic · Post by **stubbsonic** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:52 am

Hey Ken! Thanks for posting! Nice to see a developer here.

I know we can't expect you to compare your app to the others, but I expect some folks here may like to ask you questions about your Controller Mate software. Perhaps there are some Packers fans here, too?

http://www.orderedbytes.com/controllermate/

stubbsonic · Post by **stubbsonic** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:01 am

One kind of basic point, is that when running a macro, you are sometimes limited by the target application's capabilities. Sometimes a target app's UI design either forces you to jump through ridiculous hoops in designing a workflow/macro, and even if you do, something about the automated mouse moves & clicks just don't work in the way a real mouse will.

Though I own QK, I've decided to leave it off of my current system. I just downloaded the CM demo and will work with it in the next few days as I have time.

MIDI Life Crisis · Post by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:12 am

My only issue with CM is I don't have the time at the moment to setup the structure it requires for the macros I need. DP is my least intensive app for 3rd party macro apps, Finale the most intensive by far. All that menu clicking can get pretty deep to reach a specific symbol and macros for multiple menu navigation become mission critical, especially when scoring for large ensembles.

In my dreams, these macro apps would allow for importing macros from other apps, but given the great differences in how they approach the process, it's doubtful that will ever happen. I am grateful that we have the app to help us get back to making music and not becoming mouse abusers... LOL

MIDI Life Crisis · Post by **MIDI Life Crisis** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:14 am

ps - I'm also VERY pleased to see the developer here. Welcome OB Ken!

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:56 am

The problem is similar to comparing DP to Logic, Cubase, or any other DAW. We're VERY familiar with the one we use the most, whereas we don't always know whether we're using the other correctly or to its highest degree. When we suspect that one is superior, we have to state our hypothesis, defend it, and wait to see if anyone else can knock it down. It's basic scientific method, and it has to be done.

Ideally, you WANT to be knocked down at least periodically, if merely to know that others are upholding their end of the test.

So, assuming that the macro apps do basically the same things, we have to focus on some of the more esoteric or ingenious aspects of them, especially triggers, how many ways there are of doing the same task, the availability of actual commands or steps for constructing macros and shortcuts, how well the mouse recordings track, intuitiveness of simple operations like making keyboard commands for menus, reliability, and so forth.

So, for comparison:
• QK has the ability to string together any number of triggers, vastly expanding the ease of finding an easy trigger for every shortcut, as well as making possible intelligent grouping of triggers that make it a snap to remember them all for even hundreds of shortcuts.
• QK will try to push a button by name, by order, by coordinates, layers, windows, or by mouse recording.
• QK easily grabs the menus of any app, including submenus to any number of levels deep.
• QK distinguishes between a Wait and a Pause step, the first allowing a number of criteria that must exist before continuing. Pause, on the other hand, is simpler.
• QK allows for user input, such as increments of repeats (it can give the user a field to type in how many times to repeat), locations to move files, and variables for the user to specify in formulas.
• QK has lots of file management features. You can work on vast numbers of files, changing attributes, names, or sorting and moving them.

This is a good start, perhaps. Let's see how the others compare just with those features. If they all do the same, then I'll actually crack open the manual or something. This is still just top-of-the-head stuff.

Shooshie

stubbsonic · Post by **stubbsonic** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:11 am

That's a good list for comparison, Shooshie. I'd add a few other things that would be nice to hear opinions about.

* Clear documentation
* Simple workflow
* Active & future development & updates, compatibility with current OS
* Stability
* Effective UI
* Support

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:37 pm

stubbsonic wrote:That's a good list for comparison, Shooshie. I'd add a few other things that would be nice to hear opinions about.

* Clear documentation
* Simple workflow
* Active & future development & updates, compatibility with current OS
* Stability
* Effective UI
* Support

Me too. What can you tell us about those in one or another app?

Shoosh

frankf · Post by **frankf** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:04 pm

Nice idea, Shooshie. My responses for KM to what you wrote about QK are inline. This list only scratches the surface of capabilities of both programs of course.

Shooshie wrote:The problem is similar to comparing DP to Logic, Cubase, or any other DAW. We're VERY familiar with the one we use the most, whereas we don't always know whether we're using the other correctly or to its highest degree. When we suspect that one is superior, we have to state our hypothesis, defend it, and wait to see if anyone else can knock it down. It's basic scientific method, and it has to be done.

Ideally, you WANT to be knocked down at least periodically, if merely to know that others are upholding their end of the test.

So, assuming that the macro apps do basically the same things, we have to focus on some of the more esoteric or ingenious aspects of them, especially triggers, how many ways there are of doing the same task, the availability of actual commands or steps for constructing macros and shortcuts, how well the mouse recordings track, intuitiveness of simple operations like making keyboard commands for menus, reliability, and so forth.

So, for comparison:
• QK has the ability to string together any number of triggers, vastly expanding the ease of finding an easy trigger for every shortcut, as well as making possible intelligent grouping of triggers that make it a snap to remember them all for even hundreds of shortcuts. Shooshie

KM, Yes to all

Shooshie

• QK will try to push a button by name, by order, by coordinates, layers, windows, or by mouse recording. Shooshie

KM, Yes by name, coordinates, windows, recording. Never tried layers, order, so Dont know on those.

Shooshie

• QK easily grabs the menus of any app, including submenus to any number of levels deep. Shooshie

KM, Yes

• QK distinguishes between a Wait and a Pause step, the first allowing a number of criteria that must exist before continuing. Pause, on the other hand, is simpler.Shooshie

KM, Yes

• QK allows for user input, such as increments of repeats (it can give the user a field to type in how many times to repeat), locations to move files, and variables for the user to specify in formulas.Shooshie

KM, Yes, allow for user input during execution.

• QK has lots of file management features. You can work on vast numbers of files, changing attributes, names, or sorting and moving them. Shooshie

KM, Don't know, I use another app or Finder for these, will have to check

This is a good start, perhaps. Let's see how the others compare just with those features. If they all do the same, then I'll actually crack open the manual or something. This is still just top-of-the-head stuff.

Frank Ferrucci

frankf · Post by **frankf** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:22 pm

stubbsonic wrote:That's a good list for comparison, Shooshie. I'd add a few other things that would be nice to hear opinions about.

* Clear documentation

KM, Yes, online. Although I think "clear" can be subjective

* Simple workflow

KM, Yes, it's a block style design, which I like, but again subjective

* Active & future development & updates, compatibility with current OS

KM, Yes. A lot has been posted here about this

* Stability

KM, Yes in 10.9.5 for me

* Effective UI

Don't know what you mean by this !

* Support

KM, Yes by author on web

Frank Ferrucci

bayswater · Post by **bayswater** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:16 pm

stubbsonic wrote:One kind of basic point, is that when running a macro, you are sometimes limited by the target application's capabilities.

That's an important point. I've had a couple of runs at QK, and more recently at KM. Both were unable to do some things I'd find useful because there is no access to certain things in the Finder or DP.

I was hoping to use one or the other to launch a number of applications, including DP, and to arrange windows in Spaces. No dice. I suppose I could record a load of steps to put things in exact locations, and record a lot of mouse actions to do this. But this, and the lack of access to mini menus in DP makes the setup of shortcuts quite time consuming and experimental, and in my case, doesn't seem worth the effort for the items that can't have shortcuts assigned.

On thing Cubase did that DP could probably benefit from, is to assign a chain of keyboard shortcuts to a single shortcut.

Comparing the two, I got a lot further with KM. I couldn't get QK to behave consistently -- that may be due to the lack of updates -- it often behaved differently running the same macro multiple times; put windows in different places, made them different sizes and so on.

It also seemed to me that neither were all that much easier to figure out than AppleScript / Automator.

Maybe CM is different? Easier?

frankf · Post by **frankf** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:43 pm

I agree with both bayswater and stubbsonic on this. DP has never been scriptable, which would help with things like mini menu access, BUT I discovered recently that many menu commands are accessible from DP's contextual menus and KM nails those. The mouse must be positioned over a track in the SE somewhere to activate the track contextual menu, but that's a lot easier than positioning it over the few pixels of the mini menu and I'm usually working in the track I want a mini menu command to apply. Once the contextual menu is open (right click via action 1 in KM) you can choose a command by typing its first letter or two via the following actions. So a macro like Right-clk over a track in the SE, "si" for size, right arrow, than "h" for huge will resize the track to huge. Plus, with slightly different methods, you can get all the size options in a menu where you can choose by letter.

Frank Ferrucci

bayswater · Post by **bayswater** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:31 pm

It's a good point that the contextual menus are useful, and the couple of macros using them you shared were quite clever. Even so, I'd like macros to make it possible to minimize the use of the mouse.

MOTUnation.com