I suppose it's kinda useless to complain. I still like Sonar and I'm not about to switch. But honestly that probably has more to do with Mac/Windows than anything else. If I were already on Mac I'd be hard pressed not to use Logic for the price and the fact that everyone around me is using it.

Beepster
Yeah... they probably should figure out a way to port to Mac but as a PC user I'd rather they not and just keeping making things better for ME (I'm greedy like that... lol).
 
 

Porting to a Mac would not make Sonar a more likely choice for professional users concerned about compatibility with other pro's. ProTools is Mac or PC now, but I expect there would not be a lot of dedicated PT users who would leap to Cakewalk if they could run it natively on a Mac. There are probably not zillions of people running Sonar under Bootcamp, even though performance should be pretty much the same as on an equivalent "PC.'' When Apple ported their machine to Intel, Windows did not become the OS of choice for the Mac, even though there are reports that Windows on a MacBook Pro runs better than OSX. There is absolutely nothing about Apple machines that makes them inherently more suitable to audio work than a well built computer from any other source. People who are paying for over-priced computers from Apple are unlikely to think much about how much money they would save by buying Sonar instead of one of the already OSX-ready alternatives. And any savings in price would be offset by the problems entailed by trying to get projects from one DAW into an essentially incompatible competitor. So long as the industry leaders are converging on a de facto standard DAW, it will not be displaced by a simple port of a less popular (at least among pro's) DAW to a more popular OS.

P-Theory
I work everyday in professional studio environments...

But your experience also explains why SONAR is successful without having to be a part of the "studio establishment." There's a common myth that the pro studio is dying, but John Storyk will you differently to say the least...he's never been busier. What is dying is the collection of large, Pro Tools-based studios that are the descendants of the 2" 24-track tape machines of yore. However more people, including professionals with multiple platinum records, are working in "closed" environments when they are creating their own studios (hence needing designers like Storyk), and can use pretty much whatever software they want. Of course that doesn't mean they're all going to use SONAR, but it also means they're no longer bound by ironclad project compatibility issues. Being able to exchange audio files is usually good enough. 
 
Where SONAR is making its greatest gains is with people who are involved in, for lack of a better term, "music creation"--songwriters, people who create music beds for videos, narration, demos, etc. The songwriter contingent is a significant part of SONAR's demographic, and in general, they choose SONAR because they like the workflow. Another reason is if they're starting out, having a relatively complete selection of plug-ins minimizes the expense of getting "off the ground."
 
As these people progress, they'll likely stay with SONAR for the same reason people starting with Pro Tools stay with Pro Tools. Also, I have seen anecdotal evidence of people who have pretty much had it with the Mac. The new machine is lovely, but expensive...they can get better value with Windows so they buy a machine just to run music software, which of course is the optimum environment for running Windows audio or video software. So they hold their nose, buy a PC, keep their Mac laptops, and find out Windows not only isn't so bad, it has a few cool tricks up its sleeve.
 
SONAR is doing fine. It could always do better - until every man, woman, and child on earth has a copy (and we discover life on other planets, there too), Cakewalk cannot rest . But fortunately, there are plenty of people making music outside of big studios, a lot of them choose programs other than Pro Tools, and SONAR does well with that demographic.

Anderton
However more people, including professionals with multiple platinum records, are working in "closed" environments when they are creating their own studios (hence needing designers like Storyk), and can use pretty much whatever software they want.

This is a great point. I don't need to know I am using the same cool software as someone else. I just need something that works for me, in my "closed" environment. Computer based DAWs are reducing our need for big commercial studios. In the end, the quality of my home recordings is technically indistinguishable from that of recordings coming from studios using Pro Tools or any other DAW. And when I record outside my home (because I can't do a live band in my place), the tracks I make somewhere else on some other DAW are perfectly importable to Sonar back at the house. Sonar is not inferior to other DAWs, and I don't have an inferiority complex because it's the one I choose to use.

Only reasons to use professional recording studios from my perspective...
 
1) Rooms sound - drum kits etc.
2) A treated room when mixing - this is a big deal. Sadly I often have to do without it down to budget limitations.
3) It can often make a band more productive, purely psychological. They think they've made it if they see lots of bright flashy lights.
4) It can also make a band more productive when they realise how much money is being spent (assuming it's their money), or if there's a deadline to get something done (assuming they care, the ones that don't often spend most of their time rolling up the next spliff).
5) If they nick gear... hopefully it won't be yours....

I have only used SONAR, so I am proof that ignorance is bliss

slartabartfast
There is absolutely nothing about Apple machines that makes them inherently more suitable to audio work than a well built computer from any other source. People who are paying for over-priced computers from Apple are unlikely to think much about how much money they would save by buying Sonar instead of one of the already OSX-ready alternatives.

I've found myself having to get into using Logic over the last few months. Nothing to do with being unhappy with Sonar, entirely due to working with people who are heavily commited to Logic.

Anyway, I bought a new (well, refurbished by Apple) Macbook Pro three weeks ago. To get it set up to handle audio with a stable round trip latency of around 6ms I had to do.... Nothing. No digging into the BIOS to switch off various cpu power saving and speed stepping modes, no registry editing to switch of cpu parking, no killing of loads of services and background processes. Nothing. Just load the RME and MOTU drivers, update the UFX firmware and let core audio and core MIDI handle the rest. Wifi, that killer of real-time performance on a PC, no problem at all on the Macbook.

OK, there was one thing. I had to stop Time Machine backing up everything every hour.

And the Macbook, though being a quadcore i7, is much less powerful than the PC in my sig. Cost a lot more of course, and Apple do have their own peculiarities like no TRIM support for non-Apple branded SSDs, but many of the problems DAW beginners have with Windows PC DAWs simply aren't there with Macs.

As for saving money on the DAW software by buying Sonar rather than an OS X DAW, Sonar Platinum costs considerably more for a first-time buyer than Logic Pro X. Apple have the advantage of being able to use their software as a low-priced incentive to buy their hardware, then Apple make their money out of selling that hardware. The combination works together and if one half of it generates little or no income that doesn't matter so long as the other compensates.

Splat gives you more plugins of course and more soft-synths. Equally, Logic has its' own set of oddities and Sonar, in my opinion, wins out in some regards, while Logic compensates with some nice touches I'd welcome in Sonar.

All the modern DAWs that have been around a while are very capable and all have their odd behaviours and bugs as well. Ironically it's the "industry standard" one that's often been playing technological catch-up with the rest while Sonar, or Cubase, or Logic, or Live have often been out in front as far as the technology is concerned. Pro Tools HD's unique approach of being able to assure studios that the equipment all works together and even if the computer crashes the client's work is still safe counts for a great deal at the sales-face, but you don't half pay for it.

Which is where Craig's point about songwriters amd music creators comes in. The musician/writer/engineer/producer who either doesn't need big studio facilities or can't afford them has been the growth sector in recording for over 20 years now.

tlw
As for saving money on the DAW software by buying Sonar rather than an OS X DAW, Sonar Platinum costs considerably more for a first-time buyer than Logic Pro X. Apple have the advantage of being able to use their software as a low-priced incentive to buy their hardware, then Apple make their money out of selling that hardware. The combination works together and if one half of it generates little or no income that doesn't matter so long as the other compensates.

Yup Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware and charges a premium, that's why as soon as they get the opportunity they will release another hardware platform making the current software (or plugged in hardware such as UAD cards) impossible to run on it. You then end up stuck in the middle ages until you update your hardware. I've seen this happen over and over again it's enough to make you want to update to Linux 
 
That does not happen so often with PC's... however with Windows 10 for free ones wonders if MS is starting to follow this strategy themselves (doing a deal with hardware manufacturers).

tlw
To get it set up to handle audio with a stable round trip latency of around 6ms I had to do.... Nothing.

Purely anecdotal. Here's my anecdote: I bought a new PC, plugged it in, installed Sonar, and everything has been beautiful for three years now. Of course, this was a machine that I had specced just for audio/video recording/editing/mixing. Maybe people are having problems with their PC-based DAWs because they are buying off-the-shelf HP machines with inadequate CPUs and 50 gigs of crapware running in the background. Of course you have no such choices when you buy an Apple computer, but then you pay top dollar. This is fine for well-funded commercial operations and rich people, but in the real world there are many talented folks who can't get on the Apple/Pro Tools train. In any case I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Apple computers are superior, although I do envy your experience.

No issues with off the shelf Dell machine now 4 years old. I tend to wipe the machine and reinstall windows when I get it. And yes I've done quite a bit of optimization.