ORIGINAL: jb
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.

Yes that is what I wrote more or less.

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.

This might be true but is a different debate and not a reason to port Sonar to OS-X. Cakewalk can easily increase the price without porting.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean we should take that as an excuse to suppress discussion.

I'm not surpressing discussion. I am pointing out some fallacies in some arguments being presented, giving counter arguements when I think they are warranted and agreeing with some of the valid arguments in favour of porting.

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.

You lost me on that last sentence. What do you mean?

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

Seems obvious to me.

Of course it is - your interest is in Sonar staying cheap and Cake not taking on more than they can handle.

Not especially. I just don't want it to get more expensive without any added features. And I mean features within Sonar itself like oh errr ... nested track folders or whatever.

By your admission we have only the absence of a port to indicate it might negatively impact costs, etc.

No way! Go reread my whole post. I am pointing ou that there is zero evidence that the Sonar OS-X market can support the cost of porting Sonar yet there is alot of circumstancial evidence to the contrary if you can see it.

but this absence doesn't demonstrate anything other than they have not yet decided to port, not why.

Even after that quote from Mr Cakewalk himself you still say this? I don't know but it just seems plain obvious to me. Maybe our mileage is just different. It seems I was right on the money all along.

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.

As I've very clearly pointed out, it will most likely increase the cost of Sonar with no benefit to me and possibly no benefit to anyone but a select few. We obviously have different interests!

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.

NOT based on self-interest. Based on common sense, having experience in the IT world from a techy up to upper management, and having a fairly good view and experience in the audio world on all sorts of levels and various fields. Like I said, mileage might vary.

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?

Again, mileage might vary...

UnderTow

This type of honest admission has no place on this thread!

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

ORIGINAL: fetishfrog

I would equate this to certain programs in the Windows world not running properly on SP1 or SP2...

That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

UnderTow

Are you still whining about being wrong and the Mac Pro taking technology lead? I told you this is most likely temporary and the lead will bounce around, you don't need to get so upset about it.

Why is it so difficult for you to say "Wow, that's cool". It just doesn't make any sense. Did Apple kill your dog or something?

No, not whining about that at all. Are you still hell bent convinced that you can't buy a Wintel machine that's more powerful than Mac Pros?

ORIGINAL: ooblecaboodle

Are you still whining about being wrong and the Mac Pro taking technology lead? I told you this is most likely temporary and the lead will bounce around, you don't need to get so upset about it.

Why is it so difficult for you to say "Wow, that's cool". It just doesn't make any sense. Did Apple kill your dog or something?

No, not whining about that at all. Are you still hell bent convinced that you can't buy a Wintel machine that's more powerful than Mac Pros?

It really does bother you doesn't it? The problem is that you take this whole PC vs Mac thing religiously and so you acted quickly without thinking.

You just need to realize that computers are tools that help you accomplish something. They are not trophies or phallic symbols, just machines. In this case you have transposed a machine into something that you feel very strongly about emotionally. That is, of course, a bit abnormal and has led to your behavior that has caused you further embarrassment.

There is no question that the Mac Pro offers the fastes Quad Cores currently available from anyone. Sorry if that personally upsets you but learn to deal with it, you will grow as a result.

Clearly someone's going to have to post a link to a 16way x86 system that's not too far out of the Mac Pro price ballpark, like a quad socket Intel system for quad core Xeons. A quick pricewatch search didn't do it for me.

8 way systems are damn easy to find in either a dual socket Core2 Xeon, or a 4 socket Opteron (which is sometimes faster due to UMA and hypertransport), but the next jump to 16+ core systems seems to be a little trickier.

Links say more than simple arguing.

I already posted a link, which axe chooses to blindly ignore.

<sigh>
Hopeless then eh?

Which page was it on? I'm curious myself...

ORIGINAL: wogg

Clearly someone's going to have to post a link to a 16way x86 system that's not too far out of the Mac Pro price ballpark, like a quad socket Intel system for quad core Xeons. A quick pricewatch search didn't do it for me.

8 way systems are damn easy to find in either a dual socket Core2 Xeon, or a 4 socket Opteron (which is sometimes faster due to UMA and hypertransport), but the next jump to 16+ core systems seems to be a little trickier.

Links say more than simple arguing.

Would those Quad Cores be 3.0GHZ? I think not. Please take a moment to understand what you are talking about before you post.

Please post a 3.0GHZ Quad Core that was available when the Mac Pro was release. You will find none as Apple had an exclusive.

You could argue that a Cray is more powerful but it is really not a DAW now is it?

Geez, like herding cats

Would those Quad Cores be 3.0GHZ? I think not. Please take a moment to understand what you are talking about before you post.

Please post a 3.0GHZ Quad Core that was available when the Mac Pro was release. You will find none as Apple had an exclusive.

I don't particularly care if they were 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, or 3 gig. It wasn't a cray supercomputer, it was a workstation class machine, with 16 cores
EDIT:
just in case you don't quite get it, that's eight processors, each with two cores.

Found it... repost: http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/APEXX/apexx8_overview.asp

I dare say that may cost a bit more than the Mac Pro (it's one of those have to ask deals), though I think the point is that it's in fact more powerful.

For the record that Mac Pro is a hell of a machine. But I repeat the point that the bleeding edge tech is never a good value in dollars for performance ratio, so the rational person should stay away.

ORIGINAL: axe

John,

I would agree with the only exception being that the Mac will handle streaming media under load better than a Windows machine due to Apple's Core Audio implementation. To get close to this in Windows you need WaveRT drivers.

That to me is a glaring difference.

Right. Well, I've no desire to join the seemingly growing band of villagers with torches heading for your house, but you've got to admit, if you're agreeing that there's not much in it apart from that, you've overstated your case here a hell of a lot.

Uhm, you posted it

Posted what exactly? a 16 core workstation that you still seem to deny exists?

Once again you are struggling with the facts. The 16 Core is not a Quad COre processor? Is this difficult to understand?

Let me be as clear as I can for your child like intellect. The discussion was on a Quad Core processor ... of are you with me?

Ok, now the next item ... are you ready? In a DAW that you can buy and actually use ... did you get that?

You can produce no such beast and have squirmed like a worm on the hook attempting to find a way to get out of a corner that you backed into. You are not going to produce a Quad Core processor faster than the Mac Pro when it was launched. You know it, I know and everyone on this board knows it.

So what are going to do? Because this is pathetic.

I know it's not a quad core, it's 8 dual cores. [bewildered astonishment] THAT has been your argument all along? not that the mac is the most powerful, just that it has 3 gig quads? [/bewildered astonishment]
So you KNOW that the mac is not the most powerful workstation then? (yes or no will suffice)

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

they probably did evalute the potential market of Sonar on OS-X and thus,

well you seem to be right and that they categorically will not port SONAR to OSX (according to the article that Gordon found) but it is worth noting that Greg has some regrets about the decision.

Nothing is going to change that now though. So I'll just investigate the plugins (Dimension and Rapture) which are cross platform and if they are effective I'll still have incentive to stay on the forum.

If Cakewalk has some regrets about the decision, it's interesting to ask whether, in two years, they will be regretting it all over again, or whether the market will shift. If Apple is coming out with a new version of Logic that is dramatically different, it could really shake up things on the Mac, which will have repurcussions over here. It could spell doom, it could spell opportunity, or it might do nothing. In which case, Cakewalk may be pondering in two years, hmm, I wonder if we should have ported back in 2007?

But which way are they blowing, and how to capitalize on it? Difficult questions both. I hope these threads, amongst the muck, help equip Cakewalk with some information to formulate their strategies for both.

ORIGINAL: axe

That has been my point all along ...

Liar! Let me quote you back:

Imagine that, PC having to catch up to the performance of Mac.

...

Apple has the most Powerful Intel platform available on the market for audio. I just want it to be understood that this is the case ... for now

The 8-Core Mac Pro would make an unbelievable Windows or Mac OSX audio machine and represents not only the pinnacle of performance, at present,

...

Right now you cannot buy a PC Windows machine that is as fast as a Mac ...

...

This makes the Mac Pro the most powerful hardware platform on the market.

...

So, we have finally established that the Mac Pro is the present leader (as of time of posting) in the Performance category. Apple ... captured the pinnacle of performance for an Intel Platform.

...

It has leveled the performance playing field and in the case of the Mac Pro has taken the lead.

UnderTow