I apologize for the bad typing of above quote, I could not find this on the web yet, its not on there site, they don't even have teh latest issue advertised on there own hompage?

Still i promise you that is verbotten from the Greg Hendershot interview

Still i promise you that is verbotten from the Greg Hendershot interview

good find Gordon!!

So I guess I did waste 1/3 of my vacation on this.

all the best...

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

dude I just realized who you were. Enjoy the forum.

Took you long enough

Back to work now.

All the best.

We tried to tell you.
But you were blinded by your taste in OSs

lolz please don't try to associate yourself with good company , and if you are celebrating Cakewalk's failure to make the right call a few years ago then well....maybe you should stay right here.

I don't think we can second guess like that D.Triny

They may have made the right call, lets say they did port to MAC years ago and that meant that the App cost more, or they did not have as many features at a critical time, and people did not buy it, then the whole company could have gone bust and we would have no Sonar on either operating system

So maybe they made exactly the right choice, we will never know.

G

So maybe they made exactly the right choice, we will never know.

well they are still standing...so as of now it could be the right choice..for them at least. There have always been defections...so now I'm officially one of the statistics eek

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

lolz please don't try to associate yourself with good company ,
and if you are celebrating Cakewalk's failure to make the right call
a few years ago then well....maybe you should stay right here.

Failure? I think not.
I see nothing but success in Cakewalks strategy so far....

And now SONAR will even run on a Mac so where's the problem?

If your entire argument for porting is based on the perceived
insecurity of XP/Vista I suggest you spend about as much time and effort
as you have here in the last few days, making XP/Vista secure on your MAC.

It can be done.
Many of us have no intrusions/infections at all once we learn how to
secure our chosen platform...
And I don't mean by running Nortons or some other such behemoth.
It just requires a little bit of research and effort.
It's a small price to pay for the freedom of choice and lower costs
we receive in return.

From where I stand Cakewalk made the right choice, even though it made the
battle for "mindset" a lot harder.....

If your entire argument for porting is based on the perceived
insecurity of XP/Vista I suggest you spend about as much time and effort
as you have here in the last few days, making XP/Vista secure on your MAC.

see you did not read again. How the hell do you get that my "entire" argument was based on the perceived insecurity of XP/Vista? Despite the fact that we know now that SONAR will not be MAC/OSX. Don't use that to fool yourself into
thinking that you have significant capacity to comprehend what you read.

I will continue to run my MACs as is, and will run XP/Vista on my other computer as I see fit.

..and will continue to wonder why I entered in a discourse with a forum poster who views drug use as recreation.

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

They are ... in my head.

ORIGINAL: D.Triny
..and will continue to wonder why I entered in a discourse with a forum poster who views drug use as recreation.

huh?
Drug use?
Where did that come from?
Now it's you who has me confused with someone else.
Because drug user I am not.

Maybe you forgot what you wrote in your explanation of why you like OSX?
The only reason given for not using XP/Vista was possible malware infection....

wrong, read it again. Maybe someone else here can help you.

Well, I found the underlying premise of the debate to be the interesting point of discussion rather than whether indeed it was ported or not. Why? Well, a port wouldn't show up until Sonar 8 at the earliest (I would assume). That's a year and a half away. Eighteen months from now, Vista will be ubiquitous. As an OS, I think it will be good enough for most people that buying a Mac won't have quite the appeal that it does even today. If Vista "just works", it'll be great. Reduced security concerns, great. etc.

So, I'm not really sure why there is such vociferous animosity towards OSX. It's serving its purpose: to sell Apple computers. But, where is the market in 18 months, 36 months, etc.? Who knows?

There is definitely an argument for chasing the pro label. It has been Mac-based PT, and to a lesser extent, Logic on a Mac. Logic on a PC started to do well, so Apple quashed it by buying it. That bought Apple four more years and counting. But, maybe the Mac goldmine is close to being used up. Maybe not. It's what has been done on a Mac that is valuable, not the Mac itself. If people can't get past their Mac hatred enough to see that, then it can continue unmolested. If Mac love can't see past that either, then there can be this belief that the future will be the same as the past. History has shown that things will change, however.

One of the first things Apple did with Logic is streamline the product line. Why don't we have 6, 7, or 8 different versions of Microsoft Word? Most don't use the advanced features, but we pay for them. Obviously, Word is on a different scale of sales, making this more possible, but maybe it's not so different.

I still contend that there are many musicians who do not use their computers for music. The new USB/firewire devices will help bring them in, but the software (including drivers) isn't there yet.

For example, M-Audio. Go to their website and they tell you that Windows XP Media Center Edition is unsupported. They have a link to Sweetwater with a list of software that also does not work on MCE. I happen to know that quite a bit of the software on that list does in fact work on MCE. But, this is pro audio stuff, not consumer stuff. Please, spare me the attitude. Okay, so I'll upgrade to Vista. Nope, not ready yet. This is M-Audio, a division of Avid, Digidesign sibling. Anyway, I understand that it makes us feel special to be "pro" and all, but this is for musicians, who aren't necessarily that interested in the technicalities. This makes the Apple slogan appealing, but I still think that more musicians aren't buying any of it at all. I'm talking light hobbiests included. Who wants to be told to go buy the amateur version?

So, where do I think opportunity lies for Cakewalk? Bringing the pro level to the masses. Maybe streamline the product line. Software that works on computers regular people buy. This is already what Cakewalk does. The democratization of many industries has already occured. Perhaps we are on the cusp of a new direction in music software.

Regardless of even that, though, is that a computer is becoming the instrument itself. There is less concern about being on the right platform as an independent than there used to be. You will take your computer to a studio which will have Pro Tools. You will bring whatever you use on your computer. You will either make wave files, or simply play the music on your computer and record it into the studio's system the old fashioned way. So, maybe being the best thing for the user is the best direction.

Credibility can be had. Porting to Mac is one idea. These are others. A part of me thinks that the "if you build it they will come" approach is for real. This would imply, though, that Cakewalk software hasn't quite matched up, because if it did, the credibility would be there in spades. That's the approach I personally would take, because it is the arena where Cakewalk has the most control. Knock our socks off with Sonar 7, and the buzz and credibility will come along with it.

ORIGINAL: Howdy
"..... Eighteen months from now, Vista will be ubiquitous. As an OS, I think it will be good enough for most people that buying a Mac won't have quite the appeal that it does even today.etc.

I predict that 18 months from now, OSX will be discontinued and MACs will be deluxe PCs.

Goodnight!

If my assessment that the Mac market is much smaller, it is inevitable that the development costs will be shared between a much smaller number of customers. That can only mean that Sonar on OS-X would be alot more expensive or that everyone has to share in the cost of the Mac port including customers using Sonar on Windows.

Only if there's insufficient customers to bear the costs. It's irrelevant that the mac base is smaller than win as long as it's big enough to support the cost. Once that threshold has been reached there's no necessary cost increase. But, for the sake of argument, what if the price goes up? There already seems to be a view that Sonar can't really be pro because it doesn't cost enough and it's not like a higher price is going to deter too many potential buyers. If a cheap price is your criteria for buying then you'll get Reaper. If Sonar cost more public perception would be that it's more pro and true or false, perception affects sales.

Indeed. The evidence so far: Cakewalk have not ported Sonar to OS-X at this point in time thus indicating that they have not felt that it would be a good business decision until now. As for the future, we shall see.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean we should take that as an excuse to suppress discussion. Sonar is practically unknown in the mac world and only now that we can bootcamp it is it coming onto ma user's (dare i say Sonar?) radar. Nows the time to welcome the port discussion in order to flush out any potential interest.

I see absolutely no evidence that there is a large group of Mac users pounding on Cakewalk's door impatiently waiting for them to port Sonar. That doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence I haven't seen or heard. Again, just like you, I am speculating.

Precisely my point - we're speculating, not throwing facts around.

Unwarranted? It is simple common sense not clouded by wishful thinking or personal interests.

Of course it is - your interest is in Sonar staying cheap and Cake not taking on more than they can handle. By your admission we have only the absence of a port to indicate it might negatively impact costs, etc. but this absence doesn't demonstrate anything other than they have not yet decided to port, not why. Besides, no one's calling for Cake to drop everything and port to mac so your interests aren't any different than mine other than I would like a port and you have no use for it.

If Cakewalk can indeed port and sell enough Sonar copies to OS-X users to cover the development and support costs of that port, it is in everyone's best interest that they do indeed port it. So far there is no evidence pointing in that direction.

To me that means that thinking it is beneficial to Cakewalk's customer base at large is wishful thinking.
Wow, did I really have to spell all that out?

Yes, you really did need to spell it out, not because it's so self-apparent and obviously true but because by doing so we see just how much of what you assert as fact is actually speculation based on self-interested opinion. Nothing wrong with that but it's really no more objective than my self-interested speculation. Good thing it's not up to us, huh?

ORIGINAL: axe
One disadvantage that Sonar has in comparison to Logic Pro, Digital Performer and Pro Tools is that Sonar has to tolerate a very inconsistent hardware base that leads to a lot of compatibility issues. This is easily the #1 cause of user dissatisfaction for Cakewalk products.

That might be the theory but there seem to be alot of complaints about how buggy Logic 7 is.

Here is a typical Logic user comment:

"I have several issues with Logic.

First, it's very buggy. There is no excuse for that when the
application, OS, and hardware are all made by the same company. Even
though Apple has an army of programmers, it seems much more
interested in adding features no one needs than fixing known bugs.

Secondly, its MIDI handling is piss poor. You can't do simple things
like transpose and scale correction. If you want to change a song to
a different key, you have to edit every part. I could change the key
and scale of an entire song with a couple of clicks in Cubase over
ten years ago. There is also no way to send MIDI clock out one or
more ports -- every setting, regardless of what it says, sends MIDI
clock out of all eight ports of my AMT-8. That's just ****ed.

Thirdly, it's timing is atrocious.

Fourthly, shortly after Apple bought Emagic they got rid of all of
the tech support, including the online knowledge base. Also, the
Logic Users Group is terrible -- run by a bunch of Emapple fanboys
who censor posts that criticize Logic or Apple."

It doesn't really matter if any of the above is true or not. That is the users's experience.

ProTools runs on the PC too so it if anything it has more possible setups than Sonar.

So that leaves Digital Performer which I don't know much about but I doubt they have Sonar's market share.

And, funnily enough, there are incompatibility issues on Macs! Some software will run on some versions of OS-X while other software will only run on other versions causing a bit of a nightmare for some users. And I am not talking OS 9 vs OS-X but rather different point releases of OS-X! Something that we have absolutely no problems with in the Windows world.

Users have little tolerance for incompatibilities and that plays to Apple.

Not quite as much as you may think.

UnderTow