Goodbye Sonar, I've had enough.

Graeme McTaggart
Let me start by saying that I'm not looking for feedback from the users.

 
Normally I would respect your wishes, but I feel several points need correcting. Don't worry, I won't be hostile  - I am trying to be educational here for those who are SONAR users.
 

In FL, I was free to create a huge number of single or multi-instrument patterns (using piano rolls and step sequences in the same pattern!)

 
SONAR can combine piano rolls and step sequences in the same track and/or clip, and they can be opened independently and/or converted from one format to the other...or not.
 

and align them precisely with regard to their relative timings, whilst viewing only their size/length, not their content

 
You can show/hide clip content in Track View. I find the Track View inline PRV far more useful than the standard PRV for doing large-scale MIDI project manipulation. I use the standard PRV for detailed editing of individual tracks.
 

but in Sonar, I have huge single tracks that have no subdivisions.

 
If I understand what you're saying, this is all possible using the inline PRV in track view. You can add subdivisions by making grid lines visible. The subdivisions adapt to the zoom level. I have zoom levels tied to keyboard shortcuts for instant resolution changes.
 

Trying to line up two tracks (guitar with drums for example) is a very arduous task, demanding many hours of zoomed-in (32nd note accuracy) screen work.

 
If I had to work that way in SONAR, I would have switched a long time ago. I don't know why you are having this problem.
 

Changing between PRV tools creates constant clashes between the note duration value and the grid snap-to value.
Why doesn't the grid automatically reset to follow the note duration? and why can't they both be locked globally until the user wants to change them?

 
Keyboard shortcuts allow quick access to customized workflows. Remember that a program like Fruity Loops is optimized for a specific type of task and workflow. SONAR is far more general-purpose, but to allow for different tasks and workflows, is highly customizable. A good example is the way it handles MP3 encoding. Instead of offering a built-in "one size fits all" solution, you can customize the encoding options to your specific needs and client requirements.
 

Why isn't there an "end of project marker"?
Many people have requested this feature, but it has never been implemented.

 
Most people know when a project ends, or delete the data past the intended end of the song by selecting in the time line for both tracks and buses so SONAR ends as expected. It's probably not that high a priority compared to some of the other features and fixes that have been implemented, which Cakewalk probably sees as impacting a wider group of users.
 

I also have a bizarre issue with the third note in the PRV not sounding, and yet a copy/paste of that data played normally.
This was in more than one project and required the first three notes to be deleted and replaced, with the copy being unaffected, yet when first placed, they had played correctly until the track became longer.

 
Sounds like note-offs were conflicting with note-ons. If you have notes butting up against each other, you probably need to increase the MIDI buffer size.
 

Goodbye Sonar, it was a real waste of money, but that is something you can only find out by paying for it and trying it out.
The demo is almost completely useless and really needs to be as fully enabled as possible, but load disabled until unlocked.

 
I didn't see any limitation you think SONAR has that wouldn't have been evident from the demo.
 

Whilst researching the purchase of a new DAW, I did read a piece of advice which said "once you learn a DAW, stick with it and don't change".
I think that this is extremely good advice, even if you are unhappy with the instruments available, like I was.

 
The main reason I'm responding to your post is I think that is not good advice at all. My advice would be "once you learn a DAW, learn another DAW." Many people here use more than one program...right tool for the right job, and all that. But, you have to approach each DAW on its terms. Trying to make it behave like the DAW you used formerly will always be a losing proposition because each DAW has its own workflow philosophy, limitations, and advantages.
 
When Ableton Live appeared, I tried to approach it as I did SONAR, Cubase, Pro Tools, and Acid, all of which I had used a lot so I was very fast and facile with them. Live was incredibly frustrating until I realized there was an "Ableton Way" of doing things. Once I figured that out, it was a piece of...cake.
 
And don't even TRY to think of Traktor as having anything to do with any DAW...
 
What I don't understand is if you were happy with Fruity Loops except for the virtual instruments, why didn't you just buy additional VST instruments to supplement them? Or switch to Reason, which has its roots in MIDI sequencing and includes some really great instruments? (I often ReWire into SONAR specifically to use those instruments...the two programs get along very well. I suspect they may go to dinner and a movie together when I'm not around.)
 
Frankly, a post like this seems like going into a car forum and saying "I bought an SUV, and while it carries lots of stuff and is quite safe, the gas mileage isn't very good and I can't take corners fast. I regret buying the SUV and should have bought a sedan." Fair enough...you should have bought a sedan. 
 
Fruity Loops is a fun program and fits certain types of needs very well. It sounds like you're their target customer. I guess someone like me is SONAR's target customer (i.e., I handle a wide variety of commercial projects, as well as music creation and audio for video), which is why I use it for the majority of my musical needs. If I was doing the soundtrack for "Lord of the Rings" and had to swap files on a daily basis with crews in Australia, the USA, and Europe, I'd use Pro Tools because that's what they would be using. 

I don't see a problem with posts like this one. Forums shouldn't be some sort of self-congratulatory group where we all talk about how amazing our choice of software is. This guy had some problems and it's useful for developers to hear from such dissatisfied users. If they only listen to happy (or mostly happy) customers that's not going to expand their market. That's how things stay broken while the outside world looks in and says, "why haven't they fixed <xyz> yet?"
 
As someone whose first experience with music programs was trackers and sequencers, I can understand the frustration. To some degree, they are very different from a classic DAW, but in other ways, they are not, at least not in 2015. You can record and mix tracks of audio with FLStudio, you can arrange clips, record automation, add effects, compose using the piano roll, use VSTis, etc. With so much overlap, it's not unreasonable to think you can move from one to the other - the issue is just how much you lose compared to how much you gain.
 
Some of this is about the learning curve - yes, there is no 'Excel style "rows and columns" approach utilised in FL's sequencer view' in Sonar, but Track View with inline PRV is quite similar. No, it's not necessarily as compact for that purpose, but it's not flawless either (e.g. if you create a 2 bar pattern in FL's Piano Roll, those notes won't line up with the 1 bar pattern in the Step Sequencer tracks)
 
But other complaints are valid and highlight gaps in the Sonar workflow. Clips and clip groups are a very weak alternative to the arrangement potential of FL Studio's patterns. As OP says, 'huge single tracks that have no subdivisions' reflects the extra bookkeeping you need to do to arrange music in Sonar. And forget to lock a clip before you start editing the one adjacent to it and it'll just merge them together for you. If one of them was a linked clip you now broke every other copy of it in the song too, so hopefully you notice this happened when you switch things back to track view. Moving things around to arrange a song is arduous unless you've gone to the effort of switching the snap mode to 'To Measure' AND you went to the effort to make sure everything started on an exact measure. Sure, you could leave it on Snap By instead of Snap To, except that doesn't work well with actual composition.
 
EDIT: Removed rant about step sequencer and matrix view as I've calmed down a bit now - but they really need to be fixed or taken out.