A useful thread would be a quick comparison of DAWS for longtime sonar users who are thinking of bailing.  Stability is the element I'm most interested in, although everyone has different criteria.  I'm not looking for heated exchanges, just the facts, mam.  Perhaps we collectively put together a feature checklist matrix?

Check out the software forum Geoffrey. There are several.

The problem I had with trying to do this is most of the products that we are considering have a full feature list and the process quickly turns from the objective does it have this feature to the subjective do I like the way that this feature works.

Just save and purchase a new one nothing like rushing in head first

Except for plain feature list comparisons, I've never seen an actual DAW comparison (not to mention a quick one!)  that's been really fruitfull. There are so immensely many possible viewpoints and personal preferences regarding workflows and UIs and everything. Rough pointers can be given of course, but still, you know nothing until you try it yourself. 
And the key thing, stability, which can never be promised. Every system is different. One certain setting of one plugin can turn a stable system unstable. I mean...in the end we're on our own :o/

We found the same thing, hard to find good "real" comparisons. We don't really have time to play with many different DAWs, we want to spend our time making music. I'm sure we could make any of them work given enough time. 
 
So we did a quick analysis for ourselves and picked Studio One. We use melodyne in almost every project, we don't use a lot of midi, we use VSTs. We are basically a band that records pretty much like the old days, recording to tape and producing what's recorded with FX and such. Here are the simple points that ruled out DAWs and why we came to the conclusion to give Studio One a try. 
 
I'll probably get killed for posting this, but it was a few simple things that were important for us. 
 
Mixcraft - No ARA support, which means seamless use of melodyne is difficult.
 
Mixbus and Mixbus 32c - No support for vst3. I know all the plugs come with vst2 versions, but the vst3 spec is much better and plugs run with less CPU and other resources if there is a vst3 version. It also "colors" the sound on purpose, incorporating the "harrison console" sound in their DAW. Some people really love this, but it's not something you can remove, it's just there.
 
Cubase - No ARA support
 
Reaper - No ARA support.
 
Reason - Not heard much good about this one. But they did recently add ARA.
 
Protools - Expensive and I just don't hear much good about it.
 
Studio One - Has ARA, supports vst3, and has a similar workflow to Sonar.
 
gabo

What larger impressions I realized over the last couple of weeks trying a few others IMHO, (although  Im Sonar biased)
Sonar seems best, and perhaps SOP and Mixcraft all seem more adapted to musicians, to easily make music. (say more like an instrument).
CuBase/Pro-Tools seem more adapted to producing and documenting a product. (say more like a robot or a machine).
 
Cheers

gbowling
Mixbus and Mixbus 32c - ... It also "colors" the sound on purpose, incorporating the "harrison console" sound in their DAW. Some people really love this, but it's not something you can remove

Ridiculous.
Offer a Harrison plug for those who want it, but my first priority is to start with clean tracks.

It's not ridiculous,  Harrison make consoles.  Mixbus is a software emulation of their hardware console.

About 20 years ago, when everything was simpler, Keyboard or Electronic Musician ran a story with a detailed comparison chart of the "sequencers," as they were called then. You could read the chart and figure out which product had the features that matched your needs.
 
I haven't seen a detailed chart like that in years, but it sure would be useful. There's a lot of information in these forums, like in gbowling's post above, but it takes time to put it together.
 
To find a replacement or complement to Sonar, I started by thinking about what features I used most in Sonar and then downloading manuals for Studio One, Cubase, and so on. My top features were detailed MIDI editing, working in staff view, and integrated pitch correction. Differences in terminology complicate things, so you won't find "staff view" in the Cubase manual or forums, since they call it "score editor."
 
I agree that a collective effort to list features would be great. We should probably start with high-level procedures, like editing MIDI or matching audio events to tempo.