Sonar on Mac OS X?

And it finally struck me that I was failing to make a point explicitly that I probably should have... When discussing the percentages, I'm referring to the market of currently non-committed customers, i.e. the future market. Talking about the current set of DAW owners is kind of an iffy proposition. To get one of those, you have to actually make them leave their current product. That's a lot harder row to hoe and it makes the existing owner set of another platform probably not so much of a lucrative market. You have to be WAY better than other product to get people to give up their vested time and interests in that product and switch over, not just as good (generally.)

So in terms of the area of growth open to SONAR, which is the new customer market, the relative percentages of the two OSes in general terms (i.e. the 92 vs. 8, or 85 vs 8 or whatever it is) does come into play, because the it's just an easier decision to pick something you are familiar with, as long as it is a product that is competitive with what is available on other platforms, and I assume that SONAR is.

Though the OS isn't necessarily a deciding factor, and if there was something that was unambigiously three or four times better for the same price available only on the Mac, I'm sure it would pull people over. But I don't think that's the case, so the hugely larger Windows numbers does offer advantages over the Mac that is at least somewhat relative to their percentages of the market, because the new customer (about 9'ish times more likely to be a Windows user probably) will probably look for a product on the OS he knows well.

I'm sure it works the other way as well. I doubt that SONAR is so much better than anything on the Mac side that lots of people who already have a Mac would switch over. If SONAR was ported to the Mac, some percentage of existing DAW customers would probably select it. But that's a one time benefit, and the size of it is pretty arguable. Whereas the ongoing benefit, wrt to new customers, would more likely be significantly tilted towards the Windows world, because there's just a lot more potential new customers who are likely to be Windows users.

It seems to me that the current Mac DAW user count would have more to do with the fact that the Mac historically had better products (and as I said before, that's enough to pull people to an OS other than their normally used one.) But I'd like to see some numbers as to what the percentage of new customer uptake is on either side of the ledger. I'm betting that they are considerably higher on the Windows side now, which would make the ongoing benefit of a port, after you got whatever initial defection of existing customers you were going to get), relatively small in comparison (the 8% of the market, then of that the ones that would buy a DAW, and of that the ones that would buy SONAR on the Mac as apposed to something else, vs the same filter times 90'ish percent.)

The only way that wouldn't be try is if there was some huge statistical disparity that would cause people who would one day want to buy a DAW to become Mac customers years before and already be committed to that platform for other reasons. That doesn't seem very likely to me, though anything is possible. So anyway, that's the relevance of the two platform's market percentages. I wasn't really much considering the existing set of Mac DAW owners for the reasons just stated.

ORIGINAL: droddey

And it finally struck me that I was failing to make a point explicitly that I probably should have... When discussing the percentages, I'm referring to the market of currently non-committed customers, i.e. the future market. Talking about the current set of DAW owners is kind of an iffy proposition. To get one of those, you have to actually make them leave their current product. That's a lot harder row to hoe and it makes the existing owner set of another platform probably not so much of a lucrative market. You have to be WAY better than other product to get people to give up their vested time and interests in that product and switch over, not just as good (generally.)
.
.
.
I'm sure it works the other way as well. I doubt that SONAR is so much better than anything on the Mac side that lots of people who already have a Mac would switch over. If SONAR was ported to the Mac, some percentage of existing DAW customers would probably select it. But that's a one time benefit, and the size of it is pretty arguable. Whereas the ongoing benefit, wrt to new customers, would more likely be significantly tilted towards the Windows world, because there's just a lot more potential new customers who are likely to be Windows users.
.
.
.

I really don't understand your insistence on this point. I'm going to state why I
have a different view of this and I'd prefer if we can then try to let this part of the thread die out.

You are claiming, without any evidence, that future musicians will predominantly be running Windows. As
I've stated, I own a business that sells music gear and I'm just not seeing that. I also follow this from a Wall Street
point of view. According to Wall Street analysts, Macs have been gaining market share over the past few
years, and many Mac purchases are going to first time users of the Mac platform. Windows is currently at
the beginning of a very major cycle with the release of Vista, while Mac is at the end of a cycle, a few
months from a major new release. Yet Mac sales remain robust, to the surprise of many analysts.
The success of the ipod creates what Wall Street calls the "halo effect" which makes ipod owners aware of
Macs and more likely to buy Macs. More than half of Mac purchases last year were to newcomers to the Mac
platform. A "halo effect 2" is expected to result from the iPhone. But I believe the halo effect is even stronger
for musicians.

Newcomers on Mac typically start out with GarageBand, which ships for free with every new Mac. It's not
a pro app, but it's no toy either. It comes with a good selection of high quality soft synths and effects, it's
fairly capable, it's stable, and it's extremely easy to use. Most people can start using GarageBand within a
few minutes without even consulting the docs, even as first time users. Obviously, GarageBand is going
to recognize the built in audio on any Mac it ships with. So you can buy a Mac, and
literally within minutes you can be creating songs, using the built in audio in the computer, without any
additional software or hardware, except your midi controller. It's actually a fairly compelling situation. As
these people hit the limits of GarageBand, many follow the natural upgrade path to pro sequencing software
and hardware on Mac.

My business sells M-Audio gear among other stuff. Now, in its core areas, M-Audio is kicking the competition's
asses in the low end market, where Sonar is probably most popular. Nobody sells anywhere near as many keyboard
controllers or audio interfaces, etc. So M-Audio sales are a pretty good indication of what's going on. Now, when
Apple released GarageBand, sales of some of M-Audio's keyboard controllers went out of control, just off the charts.
An M-Audio rep told me they believe the Keystation 61 sold more units that month than any other controller in history.
And it has continued ever since to be the most popular midi controller on the market (far outselling the E-mu Xboards,
and higher end controllers from Roland, etc.). It's a pretty good inference that a large number of those Keystation 61's
and similar controllers are going to newcomers running Macs. So M-Audio got very interested in Apple. You see all this
M-Audio gear if you go in an Apple store. They even have a control surface specifically for GarageBand. Do you know what it
takes to bring a hardware device to market? Would M-Audio would create a control surface for GarageBand
if they weren't aware of a lot of use?

You are claiming, without any evidence, that future musicians will predominantly be running Windows.

9'ish times more people are Windows users. There's no relationship between between being born with a destiny to become a musician and being a Mac user. I.e. the disribution of Windows vs. Mac users in the world of musicians (pre-purchase decision) will be approximately the same as that of the general population, or very close to it. Why would you have any reason to doubt that?

Once they decide to make the move, and they start looking into things, they may find something that could change their direction of course. But there will be no particular barrier for those 90'ish percent to choose a Windows based DAW. They won't necessarily, but at worst they have no particular reason not to and at best they will have a tendancy to stick with products on the platform they know well and are already using in their home, as long as they have a competitive product available to them on that platform.

It doesn't mean that any particular future is going to occur. But if I were Cakewalk, I think that would be a major factor in my decision. If they make their product very competitive, then they have the far and away larger potential market open to them. So they could keep their product simpler and not suffer in terms of sales and growth.

This isn't rocket science or anything.

because the new customer (about 9'ish times more likely to be a Windows user probably) will probably look for a product on the OS he knows well.

ummmm... what ever happened to pick your apps(s), then pick your OS? It's still happening ya know

ummmm... what ever happened to pick your apps(s), then pick your OS? It's still happening ya know

This was discussed above. The point was that the OS won't PREVENT someone from picking a clearly superior application, even if it is on another OS, because the software is such an important part of the decision. So if there was something on the Mac that was so obviously head and shoulders above anything on the Windows platform, that could clearly bring people over from the Windows side.

But from the business perspective of Cakewalk, as as long as they have a competitive product, their being on the far and away dominant OS is a benefit to them, because they will tend to get the 'right of first refusal' from folks who are already using Windows. So, as I just said above, if they concentrate on making their product extremely competitive, that would be a far better application of their limited resources than trying to go multi-platform, because they do have that advantage. They just need to make that advantage work for them by giving those Windows users who would be naturally inclined towards a Windows option no reason to look further, and make sure that Windows users know it's one of the options so that it will be on their RADAR screens.

I.e. the disribution of Windows vs. Mac users in the world of musicians (pre-purchase decision) will be approximately the same as that of the general population, or very close to it. Why would you have any reason to doubt that?

What evidence do you have that TODAY the distribution of Windows vs. Mac in the musician community users correlates with that of the general population? It's just not that simple. I'm sure people who have worked in the M.I. retail sector have a much better perspective of the reality.

...and even if you are wrong about the viability of MAC, it still doesn't change the fact that Cakewalk has no intentions to port anyway

What evidence do you have that TODAY the distribution of Windows vs. Mac in the musician community users correlates with that of the general population? It's just not that simple. I'm sure people who have worked in the M.I. retail sector have a much better perspective of the reality.

I'm talking about new customers, i.e. ones who haven't made any decision yet. I don't know what the current existing customer base distribution is. It might be out of whack with the general population wrt to Windows vs. Mac. But I see no reason to believe that people who will one day perhaps buy a DAW would have any distribution significantly different from the general population. And, from a business perspective, Cakewalk would not do this because I can't disprove my point. They'd only do it if you can prove your point (and prove the disparity is significant.)

But I see no reason to believe that people who will one day perhaps buy a DAW would have any distribution significantly different from the general population.

perhaps you should consider the alternative reasons that motivate new users to buy a DAW. Not everyone treats it like corporate decision making process. Many are motivated by internship with producers and studios. They have more influence than bullet points in a sell sheet.

And, from a business perspective, Cakewalk would do this because I can't disprove my point. They'd only do it if you can prove your point (and prove the disparity is significant.)

Cakewalk can't do this primarily because they didn't plan for it.

But from the business perspective of Cakewalk, as as long as they have a competitive product, their being on the far and away dominant OS is a benefit to them, because they will tend to get the 'right of first refusal' from folks who are already using Windows.

Yes agreed on this. If they have to be only on one OS, then Windows is likely the better risk.

But I really doubt that Apple will begin to lose momentum among musicians, if anything now that they are executing well again, things should get better for their music sector.

perhaps you should consider the alternative reasons that motivate new users to buy a DAW. Not everyone treats it like corporate decision making process. Many are motivated by internship with producers and studios. They have more influence than bullet points in a sell sheet.

I wouldn't think that that would be SONAR's real customer base. They seem to sell mostly to the project studio crowd. I would imagine if you took a vote here on the forum, you'd find that people who have interned with producers or studios would be a teeny percentage relative to people who just have a little home studio and maybe play in local bar bands and such.

Cakewalk can't do this primarily because they didn't plan for it.

They could do it, if sufficient financial benefits would accrue. It's just isn't likely that they will, for the reasons I've pointed out.

But I really doubt that Apple will begin to lose momentum among musicians, if anything now that they are executing well again, things should get better for their music sector.

Anything is possible. MS could lose focus as Chairman Bill moves further away from the running of the business and it becomes more of a committee run company instead of a cult of personality. But Apple long ago lost the war in general. The business world is a huge driver in what is the predominant platform, and Apple purposefully postured itself as anti-big-business which didn't help, and then of course had decade of incompentent management and attempted to remain a high right company when the world had gone low left. At this point, it would require a massive failure on MS' part for the situation to change in a significant way.

ORIGINAL: RTGraham

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

I have bought some Behringer gear and made recordings with it that sound as good as my buddy makes with his Neve/Apogee stuff; he knows what he's doing BTW.

That's an interesting statement. My experience has been that Behringer equipment can be quite good, but it's not Neve or Apogee, not by a longshot.
I would be curious to know, long-term (i.e. over a 5-year period), as you do more recording and have access to better equipment, whether your ears still tell you that your recordings made on Behringer equipment rival your buddy's recordings made with Neve and Apogee equipment. My own personal observation has been that over the course of time, two factors have changed my perception:

1) As my ears have improved, I have become more aware of subtle differences in the "air" of a good microphone, the smoothness of a high-quality reverb, the transparent or colored nature of a top-notch preamp. I was not always able to hear these distinctions, but I can now.

2) As my monitoring system - not only speakers and amplifier but audio interface and headphone amp as well - has improved through periodic upgrades, it has revealed more of these details. There are differences in detail between equipment that I can't identify on my home stereo, in my car, or on my old rig, but with higher-quality converters, a more stable master clock, and better listening devices I can now hear the differences in my studio.

Will the typical music listener be able to hear the difference? It depends on what they're listening on, but the unfortunate answer is, "probably not." However, I know that if I'm mixing on a system and with equipment that is the best I can find or afford at the moment, that gives me a better shot at having that mix sound good *anywhere*, even if an audiophile with a $30,000 listening system buys the record.

I'm not trying to suggest that you're not getting fantastic results with Behringer; I'm just proposing that perhaps there is more difference than what your equipment or your ears currently permit you to distinguish.

You know, in 2005 I did two records with two people I've worked with for a long time.

One was produced by a friend of mine, basic tracks recorded in the drummers garage onto a VS1680; the overdubbing was then done into Logic through a MOTU and some very modest Mics (Studio Projects C1 etc).

The other one was done at Capitol Studios with nothing but the finest equipment, produced by a guy who's produced Yes records, engineered by a guy who knows what he's doing; We had it locked out for 5 weeks so it wasn't rushed or anything..

They are musically quite different, but not only does the first record hold up, it actually sounds far better to me and most people. It has so much to do with the mix, that I realized all those Neumanns make absolutely NO difference for the final product. I fully believe anybody who knows what he's doing can make amazing records with mics like the C1 and converters like the Behringer ADA8000; you can make it sound as good just about ANYTHING out there...

Now I'll say one thing: my '75 Jazz Bass is worth every penny. Good compressors/eqs on the way in can make mixing a lot easier. A good room is worth a lot, again making mixing a lot easier.

Bottom line is, I'm a musician first. I've been producing for 6 years or so and I've recorded in a lot of different places, but I care about the actual music first and whether it is represented properly on a recording. When people spend $3000 on A/D converters and then skimp on the actual musicians they are recording, I think they're on the wrong track......

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

I.e. the disribution of Windows vs. Mac users in the world of musicians (pre-purchase decision) will be approximately the same as that of the general population, or very close to it. Why would you have any reason to doubt that?

What evidence do you have that TODAY the distribution of Windows vs. Mac in the musician community users correlates with that of the general population? It's just not that simple. I'm sure people who have worked in the M.I. retail sector have a much better perspective of the reality.

...and even if you are wrong about the viability of MAC, it still doesn't change the fact that Cakewalk has no intentions to port anyway

Here in L.A., unfortunately MACs far outnumber PC's in the world of music. Never seen a big studio here running PCs. I only know a handful of guys who actually record with PC's and when musicians find out I'm a PC, they go into shock. In their defense, this is a town of below average IQ, so two mouse buttons is too much for most people to handle!

Rico

ORIGINAL: droddey
I wouldn't think that that would be SONAR's real customer base. They seem to sell mostly to the project studio crowd. I would imagine if you took a vote here on the forum, you'd find that people who have interned with producers or studios would be a teeny percentage relative to people who just have a little home studio and maybe play in local bar bands and such.

yep.

It's just isn't likely that they will, for the reasons I've pointed out.

CEO is already on record saying he regrets not doing it. They did not plan for it plain and simple.

But Apple long ago lost the war in general. The business world is a huge driver in what is the predominant platform

Irrelevant "war" - predominant OS platform doesn't necessarily mean that much. Plus Apple now has twice the market value of Dell. Believe me I really don't care that Microsoft blows away MAC OS in market share. No biggie.

attempted to remain a high right company when the world had gone low left. At this point, it would require a massive failure on MS' part for the situation to change in a significant way.

again its not *that* important what the "world" is doing. Apple is profitable and growing and so is Microsoft. Nothing wrong with that. They are not mutually exclusive ya know.

Here in L.A., unfortunately MACs far outnumber PC's in the world of music.

yup the ole Market share myth

ORIGINAL: morelli
1. I've been hearing rumors that Sonar is coming to OS X. Anyone here know anything
about that? If Sonar for Mac comes out, that would be the best solution.

sonar is inextricably tied to microshaft, so much so that it is literally impossible to compile sonar in anything except ms visual studio. so there will NEVER be a sonar port to OSX, Linux or any other OS. period. cos it would voilate microshaft patents & involve porting ms API's

Irrelevant "war" - predominant OS platform doesn't necessarily mean that much. Plus Apple now has twice the market value of Dell. Believe me I really don't care that Microsoft blows away MAC OS in market share. No biggie.

Well, yeh, it does mean a lot. It's what drives software developers to develop for a particular platform, because most of them don't want to support more than one. When one of them is 90'ish percent of the market, they don't have to, so they support the dominant one. It doesn't help that Apple used to have a very snotty attitude towards their software developers, which wasn't very bright when their market presence was dropping lower and lower. The availiblity of the software to do what you need to do is the most important consideration of all.

Here in L.A., unfortunately MACs far outnumber PC's in the world of music.

quote:

"Back in the mid 90's, Macs were dominant in computer assisted recording studios that actually made money. If you did not have one, you were not going to get as much work. That changed dramatically as we rounded the bend into year 2000. Today it is hard to say which is more popular. Your choice as a professional should be influenced by your clients, that is, by your customer base. Today people will be bringing you projects they started at home on their home computers, and if you want the job, you need to be able to cater to them. You might get a Sonar Project or one made in Digital performer. Of course if you have ongoing contracts with clients that are all Mac based, or with a Pro Tools studio, you might get a clue of what they might insist that you have. If you are exclusively Mac based, you'll be scratched off the list by producers that are working on tracks with Fruity Loops or developing a new video game on the PC. "

http://www.tweakheadz.com/Mac_vs_Pc_DAWS.htm

OMF files are the way to do it, although you don't get any track envelopes. I do it all the time with my friend who has Logic, (He's a Vulcan) Sometimes the timings are slightly skew-wiff but no big deal.

FWIW:
I won't get involved in the age old Mac/PC thing. I've done it before, and actually don't really care about it that much, particularly since I've been rather happily using both (and Linux) for years now, and I find that a perfectly acceptable solution: if you like it, buy it... if you don't, don't... accept that there are people whom you will not sway, and products that will not be ported. Done.

But, I thought I'd follow up on my previous post about bootcamping/virtualizing.

On virtualizing with Parallels:
Not doing. The lack of FW support and poor (IMO) USB support kills the app for me... makes it immature, and uninteresting, and certainly not worth money for a DAW user with external interfaces of various types. For now, it's a dead end, for me anyway.

On virtualizing with Fusion:
Trying next week. VMWare is a bigger player in the virtualization world than Parallels, and I frankly think they'll probably take over the market now that they've entered it. Tons of experience with that sort of thing is worth taking a look at.

On bootcamp:
With a few fairly minor issues, this is working VERY well so far with Project5 and ASIO4ALL. In fact, it's working so well at 3ms latency that I wasted half the day at work sipping a pint and playing with it.
It's seemless, except for one thing which I haven't figured out that haven't happened on any of my other Windows machines: Rapture DXi crashes Project5 when you open the UI. Rapture VSTi doesn't exhibit this rather annoying behavior, however, and works perfectly. I haven't hit another DXi that does it in this setup... just Rapture.

A few things to note about that: I'm using ASIO4ALL, which I've never used but that seems to be pretty cool... I haven't entered the activation codes for Project5 or Rapture, since I forgot them and left them at home. The crash happens at the point in time where normally the registration dialog would pop up, so perhaps after registration, the "issue" will go away.

I'm actually quite shocked at this setup.
I can use Logic Pro/Express/Ableton Live on the Mac boot, with Windows virtualized if I want (a shared FAT partition would let me share data with the Windows boot).
I can use Sonar/Project5 on the Windows boot, with my development Linux machines virtualized when I want.
At home, they can both use the same midi interface and audio interface respectively.

To be honest:
I'm done. If this type of behavior carries to the Mac Pro desktops, I'll not buy another "PC" again, nor will I build one. I'm sick of having two desktops, and two laptops. It's (obviously) expensive, and bulky, and hard to manage, and generates more cables, and more superfluous support equipment like audio/midi patch bays and the like.
I'm done. This is sweet.

Take care,
- zevo

Well, yeh, it does mean a lot. It's what drives software developers to develop for a particular platform, because most of them don't want to support more than one.

I would not say that most of the software developers in the *music space* are only supporting only one platform, at least not the significant ones. Look around for a hot second and embrace reality.

When one of them is 90'ish percent of the market, they don't have to, so they support the dominant one.

empirical evidence??? where is it? You're blinded by your inability to recognize a market within a market.

It doesn't help that Apple used to have a very snotty attitude towards their software developers, which wasn't very bright when their market presence was dropping lower and lower.

lawdy... I should have known, you have some kind of personal issue with Apple. Say no more. Forgive me for not reading your signature earlier!

lawdy... I should have known, you have some kind of personal issue with Apple. Say no more. Forgive me for not reading your signature earlier!

You know nothing about me, so don't read things that aren't there. I'm somewhat of a student of the industry. I've got a shelf full of books about it. If you read up on it yourself, you will find that my statement is completely factual. Tod Rundgren, one of the early adoptees of the Mac platform for music software, when he stood up in a shareholder's meeting and complained to then head of engineering Jean-Loius Gassee that Apple was killing them with it's policies, he was told that if he was an Apple developer he should be an artist, and not interested in money. This from a guy who was pulling in close to a million a year in salary and perks while Apple was sinking.

So I'm not just spouting anti-Apple rhetoric here, I know of whence I speak. And, if you also read up on the subject, you fill find that a lot of software companies bailed out on providing Mac versions of their software because of that and because of market share. This is well documented in various books on the subject.

As an devout OS/2 guy, I know the phenomenon from the other side as well. OS/2 was a technically superior product to Windows at the time, but it lost because Windows reached the critical point of market dominance and suddenly OS/2 was 2nd or 3rd on the list for getting drivers or getting OS/2 versions of software written for it, and that was the beginning of the end. I put a lot of time into learning OS/2 and originally built my software platform on it, but was forced eventually to just face the facts that market share rules once it gets large enough.

Oh, and BTW, I should add that I just spent the last few weeks on a massive binge to add support for QuickTime/iTunes to our product, so I'm hardly anti-Apple. So you can now use our product to browse your iTunes repository on touch screens around the home with multi-zone playback using a multi-channel sound card (like a Delta or whatever), among many other things.

I'm a technical entrepreneur (slash wannabe rock star), and I'm completely agnostic. Just show me the money, baby. There was money to be made by adding strong iTunes integration, so we added it. But that same agnosticism and practicality most of the time points us the other way.

ORIGINAL: droddey
I'm a technical entrepreneur (slash wannabe rock star)

Most of them are... most of them are...

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Here in L.A., unfortunately MACs far outnumber PC's in the world of music.

quote:

"Back in the mid 90's, Macs were dominant in computer assisted recording studios that actually made money. If you did not have one, you were not going to get as much work. That changed dramatically as we rounded the bend into year 2000. Today it is hard to say which is more popular. Your choice as a professional should be influenced by your clients, that is, by your customer base. Today people will be bringing you projects they started at home on their home computers, and if you want the job, you need to be able to cater to them. You might get a Sonar Project or one made in Digital performer. Of course if you have ongoing contracts with clients that are all Mac based, or with a Pro Tools studio, you might get a clue of what they might insist that you have. If you are exclusively Mac based, you'll be scratched off the list by producers that are working on tracks with Fruity Loops or developing a new video game on the PC. "

http://www.tweakheadz.com/Mac_vs_Pc_DAWS.htm

Although, later on in the same article...

"If Bootcamp is successful, the war is over and the Mac has won."

A lot of this discussion is pointless since any Mac user can have Sonar running in seconds under Bootcamp. There are a lot of things about OSX that inspire more confidence than XP or Vista (which is why these threads come up, I suspect), but if you like the software on any platform, it's available to you if you have a Mac. It's probably a lot more practical to just use the software in Bootcamp than wait years for it to be ported!

ORIGINAL: saturdaysaint
A lot of this discussion is pointless since any Mac user can have Sonar running in seconds under Bootcamp. There are a lot of things about OSX that inspire more confidence than XP or Vista (which is why these threads come up, I suspect), but if you like the software on any platform, it's available to you if you have a Mac. It's probably a lot more practical to just use the software in Bootcamp than wait years for it to be ported!

The only problems with that are that Bootcamp still requires buying a license of Windows from Microsoft, and then dealing with the Windows OS after booting into it. And I find Windows Vista so odious that I am making every effort to move away from Windows apps entirely into the Mac OS X world before WinXP expires and Vista becomes the one and only viable Windows version. For now I still run Sonar in WinXP, but within another year or two I think I'm going to have to start looking at Mac OS X music apps and considering a move.

I only got a Mac earlier this year (needed it for work ... I'm working on pro audio software now and my company decided it needed to enter the Mac world). After having been exclusively a Windows user and developer for about 13 years, to my surprise I am totally sold on OS X now in both my work and my personal life. The only things I still do on either of my Windows PCs are my own music (in Sonar and Wavelab) and gaming. My gaming probably will stay on the old WinXP machines for a while yet, but as for music ... well, re-read the previous paragraph.

ORIGINAL: droddey
At this point, it would require a massive failure on MS' part for the situation to change in a significant way.

I personally think the situation is beginning to change. And I think Windows Vista could end up being that massive failure.

I personally think the situation is beginning to change. And I think Windows Vista could end up being that massive failure.

Everyone has their personal likes and dislikes, but I think that Vista will probably end up being very successful for MS. I've not moved to it myself yet, though I have it on a test machine for verifying that our product works on it. It's always best to hold the development machines back a bit else it's too easy to start using stuff that doesn't translate backwards very well. But once Vista gets a bit more mainstream I'll move in that direction for my development machines as well.

What exactly do you find odious about Vista?

Everyone has their personal likes and dislikes, but I think that Vista will probably end up being very successful for MS.

Vista will only succeed as a result of it being installed on new computers. It has already been announced that most US Government agencies and just last week that big businesses will not move to Vista. I work for a very large government contractor and know first hand that Vista will not be adopted any time soon they will continue to install Win XP.

As for Vista itself what a train wreck MS adds 1 million lines of code to an already shaky platform and everyone cheers. I've been in the software business since the late 70's writing code for DOS and Widows since they were released. I myself used the Vista beta and the final release at the end of last year I decided to give OSX a try I can't see myself going back to Windows ever again. It was like going home to the early days of DOS. I have an environment where the OS is small and fast with a very responsive GUI on top.

As you stated everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

Forgive me for not reading all the posts in this thread, it seems like there signal to noise ratio was kinda high.

Anyway, I am using a Mac Pro dual booted with Windows XP via Bootcamp.

I also have Parallels running.

I wouldn't expect Sonar to be ported to mac anytime soon. However, with Bootcamp this is not the issue it once was, imo.

I wouldn't suggest using parallels to run your DAW, as it does not support multiple CPUs or firewire. Also, there have been severe crashes when loading your bootcamp partition in parallels, and imo losing the ability to boot windows via bootcamp would be crippling for any musician.

I think this is totally the best of both world, and I can finally do comparisons between Logic Pro and Sonar with relative ease :)

If all these questions were answered before, sorry, but I hope this helps.

-Eric

Forgive me for not reading all the posts in this thread, it seems like there signal to noise ratio was kinda high.

You should have read the entire thread. Myself and some others in fact have Sonar running in Parallels. It does have some limitations with the lack of Firewire support and the limit of only 2 USB devices at a time. Other than that though I'm now running Sonar on both of my systems (Mac Pro and Macbook Pro).

I must say though my intention is not use Sonar on any of my Mac's for recording. I'll be using Sonar under Parallels to move files and provide support for my clients using Sonar.

ORIGINAL: droddey
As an devout OS/2 guy, I know the phenomenon from the other side as well. OS/2 was a technically superior product to Windows at the time, but it lost because Windows reached the critical point of market dominance and suddenly OS/2 was 2nd or 3rd on the list for getting drivers or getting OS/2 versions of software written for it, and that was the beginning of the end. I put a lot of time into learning OS/2 and originally built my software platform on it, but was forced eventually to just face the facts that market share rules once it gets large enough.

I've still got an OS/2 server happily chugging along doing its thing. (it just won't DIE!) OS/2 was the only OS I actually liked--is there anything out there as cool as the Workplace Shell? As for OSX or WinXX I use them both and hate them both about equally; they both have their share of quirks and infuriations. So I don't really care if Sonar is ported to OSX. Just keep it away from Linux! What a gawdawful mess Linux is!

---

gag more personal B.S. so Mr. Gasse said something stupid, so has Mr. Allchin, Mr. Gates - practically any human on this planet.

If it were an isolated example, that might be relevant, but it's not. It was fairly indicative of the attitude of Apple's management towards the software development community. I'm giving you facts and you are trying to just dismiss me as a loony toon or something. The issues between Apple and its developer is well documented, whether you choose to believe it or not, and it cost them significantly. And, in the meantime, MS was making it much easier for developers, even before their market share made the point moot.

Holy art thou, eh?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that my statements about the subject of Apple and its problems are founded on a study of the subject, while yours are more like personal attacks on me. If that's being holier than, then I guess I'm holier than. But, to me, it's just more informed than.

duh, keep it context. This is about MUSIC SOFTWARE!!!!!! get that through your noggin if you can.

Mostly it's about that. But the music software business doesn't exist in a vacuum outside of everything else going on. I was speaking to general issues that Apple has had with its developer community in that past and how that cost them. That's a legitimate issue to discuss in the context of whether Apple will succeed in maintaining any lead it might have in this particular slice of the software pie. Market share also causes issues with driver support for hardware and the various peripheral bits of software that exist in the thousands in the Windows world because event a small part of that large market is sufficient to sustain a small to medium sized development company.

...I should 'a known...an OS worshiper.

So first I'm a Bill Gates bootlicker, now I'm an OS/2 worshiper. I liked OS/2, but I've not touched anything to do with it in almost a decade. I was just pointing out that I've been on the losing end of Windows as well as the winning end. So I know the situation, as a software engineer not just a user, from both perspectives.

---

ORIGINAL: droddey
Everyone has their personal likes and dislikes, but I think that Vista will probably end up being very successful for MS. I've not moved to it myself yet, though I have it on a test machine for verifying that our product works on it. It's always best to hold the development machines back a bit else it's too easy to start using stuff that doesn't translate backwards very well. But once Vista gets a bit more mainstream I'll move in that direction for my development machines as well.

What exactly do you find odious about Vista?

UAC, the licensing, and 64-bit as a separate world are the big turn-offs for me (we have Vista on one machine at my office as well). But more generally, it feels like a step backwards for Windows ... a shallow attempt to mimic some of the glossier features of OS X, at the expense of the main thing that WinXP had going for it in comparison (which was being a relatively lean and efficient OS that leaves most of the CPU's power for use by apps). I know I'll have to do some development for Vista eventually, but as far as my personal computer systems are concerned, I am highly unmotivated to pay a premium price for something that is likely to only do harm to how I expect my existing Windows programs to run.

Whereas the forthcoming OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be one very reasonable price, with everything included, with security that actually works without handcuffing the user (unlike UAC), and with 64-bit and 32-bit applications living together in complete harmony in the same OS environment. And the development tools are free ... and Xcode 3 sounds like it should be an impressive step forward. Now THAT is an OS upgrade that I'm looking forward to (not that I'm feeling at all constrained by Tiger).

Oooo, the concept of Sonar running on Leopard ...yum. :)

I wouldn't be so confident in the security. If the Mac ever gets to the point where Windows is, and becomes the primary target of hackers, you may get a rude suprise. Hackers follow the same market share principle that developers do. If you are going to hack, get the most for your money, and therefore they go after Windows very heavily. That's unfortunately on the one hand, but on the other hand it does force Windows to continue to be very aware of these issues.

As to XP being very lean, it is, and you can strip it down considerably more if you want. But it wasn't seen that way when it first appeared either, as I remember. Vista, being the next step, will tend to move back in that direction of pushing the limits a bit. But by the time the next major release comes out, we'll probably be talking about how Vista is a fairly light OS and whatever that new one is is too piggy.

There's not really much difference on the development front for Vista. I at first thought it was going to require all these changes, but it didn't. Our system is large and does a lot of things, both in service based background servers that are accessing all kinds of stuff and with multiple front end apps, networked clients, lots of media stuff and so on. But, in the end, about the only real change was just to mark the installer as requiring admin privs, and most of the apps we marked as well since they are only for admins of our system. Otherwise, our product is pretty much unchanged for Vista. There is no conditional code in it for Vista or anything like that.

If the Mac ever gets to the point where Windows is

that's the beauty of the situation, it will never get to that point.

ORIGINAL: droddey
I wouldn't be so confident in the security. If the Mac ever gets to the point where Windows is, and becomes the primary target of hackers, you may get a rude suprise. Hackers follow the same market share principle that developers do.

It's possible - no one can say that for sure unless/until it actually happens. Right now, in the most practical sense, OS X is far more secure. I also draw some confidence from the fact that OS X is built on top of Unix, which for a long time was the primary (if not the only) OS on the Internet, and was hence being attacked on a regular basis. Security holes were being plugged in Unix long before Windows was even on the scene. Unix was also designed as a multi-user platform from the outset, and hence manages accounts and permissions in a much better integrated fashion than in Windows, where such issues were a very late afterthought at best.

There's not really much difference on the development front for Vista. I at first thought it was going to require all these changes, but it didn't. Our system is large and does a lot of things, both in service based background servers that are accessing all kinds of stuff and with multiple front end apps, networked clients, lots of media stuff and so on. But, in the end, about the only real change was just to mark the installer as requiring admin privs, and most of the apps we marked as well since they are only for admins of our system. Otherwise, our product is pretty much unchanged for Vista. There is no conditional code in it for Vista or anything like that.

One observation: wouldn't that in some degree be due to the fact that your apps rely so little upon services from the underlying OS? As I recall, you were trumpeting the advantages of that atypical scenario about a page back.

One of my concerns about developing for Vista is the growing ascendancy of .NET. My experiences with .NET thus far haven't exactly endeared it to me, at least not in the venue of performance-critical, shrink-wrapped applications. (For service-oriented development companies it may be a different story, but that's not my primary interest.)

ORIGINAL: DSandberg

ORIGINAL: droddey
I wouldn't be so confident in the security. If the Mac ever gets to the point where Windows is, and becomes the primary target of hackers, you may get a rude suprise. Hackers follow the same market share principle that developers do.

It's possible - no one can say that for sure unless/until it actually happens. Right now, in the most practical sense, OS X is far more secure. I also draw some confidence from the fact that OS X is built on top of Unix, which for a long time was the primary (if not the only) OS on the Internet, and was hence being attacked on a regular basis. Security holes were being plugged in Unix long before Windows was even on the scene. Unix was also designed as a multi-user platform from the outset, and hence manages accounts and permissions in a much better integrated fashion than in Windows, where such issues were a very late afterthought at best.

Yes, that's kinda true... unfortunately, somebody forgot to tell the apple engineers: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Ancient_flaws_leave_OS_X_vulnerable_/0,2000061744,39234678,00.htm

One of the great fallacies of computer/network security... "my stuff is safe because nobody knows about it." A.K.A, security through obscurity.

Unix was also designed as a multi-user platform from the outset, and hence manages accounts and permissions in a much better integrated fashion than in Windows, where such issues were a very late afterthought at best.

Well, that latter assertion is definitely not true. Prior to NT that was the case, but not afterwards. NT was designed by a guy named Carver if memory served, who was a key architect of the DEC VAX operating system, not exactly a light weight OS, and if anything the problem with its security system is that it's so extensive that no ever bothers to learn it. I've not.

Also, the thing about Unix being a serious backend system on the net doesn't really help. You can set up XP/Server very effectively as a stripped down back end machine that is very safe. The problem is social engineering. That's now much of the hackers get the unsuspecting non-technical users. You don't have to break through their defenses, just con them into doing it for you. Send them bogus e-mails that get them to click on links and download trojans and whatnot. That's way easier than trying to get through a router that accepts no incoming connections. No one sits around and plays games, or surfs the web, or downloads porn from a back end server.

This is the reason that Vista is the way it is. It's trying to help protect non-technical users from that kind of thing. People would always run in a high rights account because it was a pain to switch to another one any time you need to install something or do something that would require admin privs, so any time you were tricked into running something malicious, it could do all kinds of damage. So they just got rid of that distinction and allow you have a single account that won't allow anything malicious unless you explicitly give it permission to do so.

One observation: wouldn't that in some degree be due to the fact that your apps rely so little upon services from the underlying OS? As I recall, you were trumpeting the advantages of that atypical scenario about a page back.

True, we would likely be better off on that front than most.

One of my concerns about developing for Vista is the growing ascendancy of .NET. My experiences with .NET thus far haven't exactly endeared it to me, at least not in the venue of performance-critical, shrink-wrapped applications. (For service-oriented development companies it may be a different story, but that's not my primary interest.)

I certainly agree there. But, with large businesses having C, C++, etc... apps out there, they won't be able to toss the existing system API for basically forever. I think that .NET has it's place on the periphery, on small devices. But that's about as far as I'd want to use it.

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

Bottom line is, I'm a musician first. I've been producing for 6 years or so and I've recorded in a lot of different places, but I care about the actual music first and whether it is represented properly on a recording. When people spend $3000 on A/D converters and then skimp on the actual musicians they are recording, I think they're on the wrong track......

Well stated.