I tried ProTools as that was most of what Nashville was using.  I had been using Sonar since V6.  I bought ProTools MP9 on a Sweetwater sale.  I had an MAudio interface so it was compatible with their closed system at the time.  I bought a suggested book to learn PT.  I just couldn't grasp or make sense of PT compared to Sonar.  If I would have really applied myself I could have learned it but since Sonar did everything I wanted, as a "digital tape recorder"  I didn't and dumped PT.

Crap, I should have read the OP first... 5 year old thread here.

mettelus
Crap, I should have read the OP first... 5 year old thread here.

D'oh!
 
Though it didn't loose much weightiness over time...

Lol...who reads when a post has been posted...not me!

Pro Tools may be the industry standard, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the best.  In my opinion, it's getting left in the dust by pretty much every other major DAW brand.  Cakewalk has been my DAW of choice for a long, long time, so I'm biased.  I think it's the best.  Every DAW has its strengths and weaknesses, but I think Cakewalk offers the most balanced set of features.  

I believe the new industry standard for studios is likely to be StudioOne.  I know a lot of engineers have switched, and only go back to ProTools when a client demands it.   It has several things going for it that make it excel in a studio environment.  I personally appreciate the slick project manager for mastering.  

Cubase still seems to be the most popular choice for composers.  I think that's due to its numerous MIDI features, excellent score editor, and of course sheer reputation.

But for me, Cakewalk still beats them all.  That's a pretty audacious claim, but I don't make it lightly.  While it may lack the project manager in Studio One, most people still do their mastering outside the DAW anyway.  And although the score editor isn't nearly as full-featured as Cubase, it's adequate, and I can still export/import to/from my choice of notation software.  In almost every way, I find Cakewalk to offer the best of both worlds.  It's got a great workflow, good console, easy-to-access tools, flexible workspace, and creative "vibe".  A lot of that may stem from familiarity.  But I think it's more than that.  

Ah the topic that never dies!

For me (and as mentioned above), Pro Tools is a fantastic multitrack tape recorder in software form.  It's how I've always used it and it's been solid.
 
However, I cannot and will not edit and mix in it, it just doesn't fit with me.  This is where I've relied on Sonar, because for me it is a joy to work with in this regard.  And quite honestly, every regard.  When I'm being creative with loads of VSTi's, complex routing, fx chains and mixes, I use Sonar (now CbB) in conjunction with Ableton Live. I feel I can achieve everything I need to with ease which satisfies my creativity.  The same cannot be said with Pro Tools, it just isn't for me.  
 
Pro Tools will always be a tape recorder for me, and it performs that function very well.

I don't understand the issue witrh more tracks on the screen.  Use "narrow all strips" and you get plenty.   Not sure how its [possible to fit any more on screen that that.   I've used and mixed on protools and SONAR CBB busses and routing is WAY MORE intuitive and efficient.   As far a comping being seamless, I don't get that either.   YOu open the track and see the lanes and highlight what you want to hear and there it is inthe main curent track.   YOu can even do groups at once like drum tracks as long as you have grouping set and the tracks in a folder..  Granted, there are some bugs like the splintering that occurs but that easy to overcome and to me editting is as quick in sonar as it is in protools and like the original post said, sonar was first to have many of the features other DAWs are finally catching up to.   I would like to see VCA faders in SOnar /CBB.  It still baffles me why SONAR/ CBB doesn't have the huge following PT has.  I wouldn't trade even if I had to... oh yea, a few months ago I though I DID have too and while I did purchase Cubase at the amazing 255$ crossgrade price (just in case), I now have no desire at all to go that route

It doesn't baffle me at all why Pro Tools has a larger following. The incumbent typically has an advantage. Pro Tools built it's market lead via hardware.  Yes, there is hardware that will work well with Sonar/Cakewalk, but it pales in comparison to the high end products designed specifically to work with PT. Larger studios have typically had incentive to stay with PT because of investment in hardware optimized (and in some cases locked to ) Pro Tools. No one is replacing thousands in hardware to give another DAW a chance.  By the time there was hardware invented that was not proprietary , PT's lead was so huge that it is almost insurmountable.  The DAWs that have been more competitive did not do so by sim ply outdoing PT in the digital tape recorder department but in composition aspects. 

@stxx I think the point in the original OP post was that he, like me, still likes Cakewalk, but when working on Pro-Tools he wished to have some of  the more seemlesly integrated features, like "loop points follow selection" here in Cakewalk. It's not about comparing the DAWs and pointing which one is better. And the point in my opinion concerns not only Pro-Tools vs Cakewalk, but other like SO1 or Live too. I think the reason why the other DAWs have better integration of some features, although Cakewalk/Sonar could have them first, is exactly this, they had more time for rethinking and implement them in an ultimate way. Why should that stop us from wishing we could have work done same great way here?
 
I used to say that I hate working in Cubase because of the "clickology". But we could have less clickology in Cakewalk also, enough to move some functions out of menus ("focus next/previous track" in prv, "modules" or "widen/narrow strips" in console) and place them, even in the menu bar, as one-click buttons.

PT has also had a very long-standing push into education, and people will stay with what they are most familiar and adapt accordingly. Once enough time has been invested, it is very difficult to switch; similar to how Disney has marketed ("Get 'em while they are young, own 'em for life!"). I have spoken to students who have said "PT in class," so that paradigm still exists, and it will be a hard one to break since the instructors themselves would be unlikely to switch. Much more intelligent marketing than platform alone.