ORIGINAL: UnderTow

There is loads of good stuff in OS-X

Can you give me one example?
Maybe something that can't be done in XP/Vista?

ORIGINAL: bigweb
Can you give me one example?
Maybe something that can't be done in XP/Vista?

Well the whole underlying "UNIX" system. One of the first things I do when sitting behind a Mac is open the terminal window. I have a UNIX/Linux/etc background so I love this stuff. This isn't for everyone of course.

But I can give you a simple little example of something that has been implemented better in OS-X than Windows: When you copy a file through the GUI, unlike Windows, it checks wether there is enough space at the target destination before starting to copy. And I love the pause button in the copy window. I whish Windows had that.

UnderTow

Timing is everything.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: bigweb

Still waiting for someone ... anyone ... to tell me:
What's so great about OSX?

Well, to give a balanced view... it's really pretty good. I think the ways in which it's superior to Windows though are in the small details. There are no big-ticket features that are significant. It's not faster or particularly more reliable. It's basically just got a better designed UI. And by that I don't mean particularly easier to use - personal preference counts for a lot on that - but there are less ways to trip yourself up than in Windows.

But these differences are marginal, and they are continually overstated by both sides of the argument. Macs are excellent computers, as are properly set up XP / Vista machines. The argument between the two camps is pure Holy War stuff.

The reason I ask this question is, you seem to be implying that OSX is
a better OS.....

I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion

oh...in my case it's really simple.

1) I also do a lot of video editing for artists, my video program of choice is Final Cut Express (used to use Vegas but FC has turned out to be better for me)
2) iPhoto is the first program that I enjoy using for photos (although I dislike it's older brother aperture) again this is for artists (press kits, cd covers etc)
3) I travel frequently (need a single portable)
4) I'm online frequently (the currently reduced malware threat is significant for me...and this is one of the reasons I am not promoting OSX for other users, that would be counterproductive. If OSX where to become wildly popular it would then become a big fat target for malware.)

For this reason a MacBook made the most sense for me. I intended to run Parallels/Bootcamp. But after running OSX I found that things were working so well, I didn't want to compromise it. I want to stay as close to default configuration as possible. The latency when testing in Garageband is pretty low by default. Usually in Windows I have to adjust this, not a big deal...but it is a good experience to have something like this already optimized by default.

So since the MAC/OSX pretty much had everything I needed with exception of SONAR for OSX, it seemed a logical thing to ask for. In the meantime I had ProTools lying around for compatibility work that I tended to do with studios. Then they released 7.3 which to my surprise added 99% of the MIDI features that I personally use when composing in SONAR. Only thing missing is Freeze.

So now I really don't have to install Parallels at all. I can use PT for most of my work. Meanwhile I look around me and quite a number of my co-producers (some who were on SONAR) are doing the same thing. I was one of the biggest champions for SONAR both offline and online since SONAR 1...and now it's being edged out of my creative life, for practical reasons and yeah some 'taste' reasons. But it's still a fact, it's still happening. Now I am enjoying computing the way I always wanted to, but SONAR is not at the party. I wanted to bring it along. That's all. Guess not though!

But I have to say everything I wanted out of computers and media when I started out 15 years ago is here. So the time and energy spent lobbying on technology forums has to come to an end - mission "kind of" accomplished.

I still like to run SONAR on the other PC's for those occasions when I just must use the Voxengo plugs, but after they are ported to MAC/RTAS I'm not so sure anymore.

ok...so this is what I'm on about. It's not a MAC OSX versus Windows XP/Vista issue. I wish users of each all the luck in the world..and I want the market share, and the perception thereof to stay exactly as they are. Windows has advantages based on ubiquity, and OSX has advantages based on lack of ubiquity or perception thereof. Good enough for me.

So I note that in your explanation of why OSX is better:
not one single example of a feature in the OS itself
that is actually better, in your opinion, than XP/Vista.

All your reasons are directly related to your work practices.

So you want a PC based DAW company to port their flagship product
to OSX just so you can continue in your preferred method of working.

And you don't want too many other people following in your footsteps
because that would attract the net nasties.

So a good description of you would be selfish and self centered yeah?

And here I was thinking there was some amazing advantage in running OSX!!

I fell for that one hook line and sinker.....

You could always buy a PC (XP/Vista based) Laptop and install SONAR on it.
Just lug that around with you as well as the MAC but keep it off the net to avoid the
malware threat.

You could always buy a PC (XP/Vista based) Laptop and install SONAR on it.
Just lug that around with you as well as the MAC but keep it off the net to avoid the
malware threat.

actually one laptop is enough. SONAR by itself is not enough to require me to bring another laptop. Plus I have the video cameras, the still cameras, the Tritons, the cell phone (hopefully soon to be the iPhone .

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

Actually one laptop is enough. SONAR by itself is not enough to require me to bring another laptop. Plus I have the video cameras, the still cameras, the Tritons, the cell phone (hopefully soon to be the iPhone .

Yeah I see it now...
You'd rather a PC based software company change it's
direction just to satisfy your work practices.

ORIGINAL: bigweb

You'd rather a PC based software company change it's
direction just to satisfy your work practices.

In all fairness that is what everyone wants.

My main argument is that I suspect that porting Sonar to OS-X will be bad for everyone. I am quite sure it will increase the developement costs quite a bit. This will be reflected in the price of the product for everyone. I also suspect that it would cut into the developement and support resources for everyone. This will be reflected in less new features in each version and lesser support for everyone.

I don't find that the arguments in favour of porting Sonar balance out with the negatives.

UnderTow

This thread and the :Performnce vs. Productivity" thread should be merged into one.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

In all fairness that is what everyone wants.

In all fairness, the general tone of Axes, jbs' and D Trinys
posts on this subject have implied some incredible advantage
of OSX over XP/Vista.

When in fact there is none.....

End of story.

When in fact there is none.....

ok good. Doesn't matter what you think I was implying , the fact is that agree there is nothing that makes OSX any more spectacular than Windows. at this point it is a matter of preference....and Cakewalk will asses the impact of this dynamic among their current paying userbase.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

ORIGINAL: bigweb

You'd rather a PC based software company change it's
direction just to satisfy your work practices.

In all fairness that is what everyone wants.

My main argument is that I suspect that porting Sonar to OS-X will be bad for everyone. I am quite sure it will increase the development costs quite a bit. This will be reflected in the price of the product for everyone. I also suspect that it would cut into the developement and support resources for everyone. This will be reflected in less new features in each version and lesser support for everyone.

I don't find that the arguments in favour of porting Sonar balance out with thesupport negatives.

UnderTow

Of course it will increase development costs, after all, it has to be developed but Cake won't develop it without a reasonable expectation of it being profitable. If they determine it's profitable then your second objection, a price increase for everyone, won't necessarily occur; in fact, with a larger, more diverse customer base, the price could just as easily come down. If it cuts into development and support 'for everyone' it would merely mean that Cake isn't wisely managing their resources, something i see no evidence for and of which I am unwilling to accuse them. Finally, as far as fewer new features go, there's no reason to think developing for os will affect that. Again, increased profits derived from a larger, more diverse user base will fund even greater development that will benefit everyone.
You seem to think that Cake is too capital poor to pursue a strategy of diversification and too poorly managed to accomplish it without destroying their current base. Maybe you work for them and have the inside skinny but if not, your fearful predictions of doom are mere speculation based on a rather pessimistic view of Cake's capabilities. I prefer a more optimistic assessment of their capabilities and believe it quite possible they could pull it off to everyone's benefit. Point is, unless you're an insider, neither of us can know what the deal is. In the mean time your unwarranted negative assessment blocks any discussion of potential benefits.

ORIGINAL: D.Triny
Yes I wrote about taste in the previous post or 2.
That we should not waste energy trying to change someone's taste.

But you don't mind Cakewalk spending a whole lot of $ just to suit your taste in OS's.

Interesting Except from this May's UK Computer Music, an interview with Greg Hendershot.

So basically they did not port becuase it would take too long and the market share was too undefined to make it worth the risk, however he does regret the resultant loss of industry respect.

I would like to add a little something here, both the XBox 360 and PS3 have incredible amounts of power under the hood, for semi reasonable prices, I think that the DAW that can start taking advantage of that could be the future. ALso based on another article in the same mag, i am off home tonight to use they tutorial on using my Wii remote as a MIDI triger, the future is here people and the MAC vs PC argument is looking more and more like a dinosaur anyway.

CM - Is there anything that you would have done differently? Do you think Cakewalk missed any opportunities?
Greg Hendershot 'The perpetual topic has always been should we port Sonar to Macintosh? It never made sense. For a long time, there were four or five successful products crowded into that space. More recently, Apple became a sequencer competitor on that platform and in the future who knows, perhaps we will all be running both Windows and OSX using somethign like parrellels. Plus it would take us Years to port the full product -what would be the competitive situation be at the other end of that tunnel?
But in hindsight, maybe we should have just done it, it definately would have helped us with 'mindshare'. Becuase many industry gatekeepers are MAC devotees, we have to work much harder to get even the same awareness much less respect.