You guys on the "Yea" side of the question need to "put up or shut up" in my opinion. How many of you have actually tried to design a GUI, particularly one of SONAR's complexity? If more of you were putting forward mock-ups or prototypes as suggested improvements (and I absolutely do not count "look at product X - it ROXXX!" comments in this category).

Of course cakewalk can modify the gui. Developers do it on a daily basis.

Companies develop and enhance flagship software not only for usage purposes but to stay competive in the market place. Im sure glad cakewalk has listened to all the "yea" comments over the years because we may just have been left in the dust by other companies that upgrade their software and listen to common complaints about it.

Your feature list for example, that is considered to you as needed upgrades, just may be bloatware to another, such as me. More then half of the users here want a change, obvoiusly cakewalk should look into a option (like skins) that can address both sides of the coin. Denying us the option not to change your gui, and the option for me to skin mine is just absurb and silly.

For me, I think CW have done a great job of balancing form and function, especially with SPE5. Just like any other major piece of software, it might take some time messing around with it to figure out some of the core functionality and customization, but it's definitely worth it! A great example is the use of the tabbed/floating windows: they're an integral part of my workflow now, but it took me a while to figure out that that was possible!

I'm happy with what they have now, but if they want to change something to improve work flow, then I'm all for that, too.

I like the look of Ableton Live esthetically, but I don't think that that approach would work for what Sonar does. I'd say save the more fad-ish interfaces for the DXi's and entry-level programs like Home Studio or Music Creator.

That said, I'm intrigued by the idea of using skins. Do Logic, Cubase, or ProTools use skins? If skins could be implemented without affecting stability or functionality, then I think that would be a good idea.

Hans, now I know who to blame for the E-Mu PatchMix interface! ;-) Looks good, but it's a pain to figure out and use. That's just one man's opinion, though...

Eh ? Zane, I didn't make that interface, I find the E-MU 1Pathmix skin ugly as hell I just made a new skin for it that has been finished by some other users. But it was a rush job on my end in my free time.

Hans

Sorry I didnt read all those 8 pages of post but I thought Id like to chime in, on the Sonar face lift, its a vote of yes for me. Dont get me wrong I finally got my color choice dialed in and my Sonar looks nice to me, but those are just colors, Id like to see maybe texture and a customizable mixer like we had back in the day, where you could change button shape and even add your own buttons

nice work hans, and I listen to a solo on your site very nice as well

Hans that stuff looks great! But maybe you can put this into perspective: it seems to me theres a trade off in so much as loading the bitmaps that comprise those eye-catching panels, and the objects that animate those cool controls etc will take time and memory. That is, you are going to run against a trade-off between bling and performance on all but the most powerful of machines. (And then how many Is Sonar Pro threads will we have to endure...)

I know we can all say, Cakewalk should make this scalable or customizable so that it can look pretty on fast machines and stay fit and trim on slow machines etc, but that kind of work is much more involved that just throwing background graphics at an app.

I love a sexy plugin as much as the next guy, but I want my core to run as fast as possible, period. I've got an XBOX for when I need eye-candy.

I normally stay out of this thread because I'm happy with the SONAR GUI usability and snappiness now, but every once in a while I think I should jump in here and say that I'm happy with the SONAR GUI usability and snappiness now so that Cakewalk will have a balanced viewpoint from those of us that are happy with the .... well you get the point.

Now, if the conversation were about getting a real macro language like TCL, or Python, or VB, or ... then I would get excited.

Thanks for the kind comments guys, but I think Cakewalk can buy much better designers Anyway, it's up to Cakewalk to decide this ...

best,

Hans

I have used Cubase and Pro Tools in the past and I think the GUI on Sonar (5PE in my case) is actually better. I'm sure they can improve it graphically but I cannot pinpoint anything in particular so I am voting to leave it as is!

After looking around at the competion to see if indeed they had better GUI, I have to vote for a change. Out of DP, Logic, Samplitude and Cubase, Sonar looks lifeless. Not that it matters much when compared to the awesome features. But still, bright colours are eye catching. DP seems to be very nice looking. And all the others seem to be very brightly colored compared to Sonar. From reading competitors forums, the GUI is what is holding back many. So it would defenetly help in more sales. I'd say skinable is the way to go. Then everyone will be happy. Or at least offer a few, more colorful choices.

I want a hamburger, no a cheeseburger. I want a hotdog. I want a milkshake. I want potato salad.

I think this discussion has gone to the levels of comically absurd. And while it is a regular occurence on this web forum for people to drift into the "what they should do..." theorems, I'd like to indulge in some of my NYC-raised style of handling this kind of tangent.

First off, if SONAR's gui is so awful, so unpleasant, and so innately wrong (despite a majority of users who seem to think it's just fine), then go use something else. No one is forcing you to stay true to any DAW. "Boo-hoo, my grey is too grey, my buttons are to rendered, this software sucks!" Are you serious? No, professionally serious?

Secondly, big whoop, someone can create shiny rendered panels and buttons. Okay, it does look great, no harping on the guy's ability to design a GUI. But I don't understand the push of the mantra from there. Is Cakewalk SUPPOSED to hire this person to redesign their GUI because of that? Seriously? You know, I sing awful purdy I think U2 should replace Bono with myself. If the GUI designer is so good, and the software is so distasteful, go roll your own. Seriously. The N-Track kids did it. The Traktion people did it. Go ahead and build your own DAW.

And you will find there is a small and violently vocal group of people who will nag you every minute about it being wrong. If the look of the software is what you're leaning on for criticising why you can't use the tool you've got bigger problems. This thread floating to the top is like a thermometer of fear and laziness.

Vote for a Sonar facelift? This isn't a democracy, you're users of a product. Submit your suggestions like everyone else and get on with your lives. What are you gonna do, mutiny and storm Twelve Tone in Cambridge with shiny instument panels and new menu designs? For frak's sake.

(note: the "you" in this post is intended to be a general "you" symbolizing the ideology of the GUI-disasistfied assuming they can "force" a change to their own desires. Any implication toward a specific individual is unintended, including Hans who happens to be a charming GUI designer.)

Yay! Another Cakewalk Knight in shining armor.

You seem to be taking this strangely personally ...wicked.

God forbid anyone offers suggestions you don't approve of.

BTW...Bono sings like a girl.

yes, I was many times seduced by my friends SX gui and contemplated jumping over, being male and visually seduceable (is that a word?).

but, Sonar is just so much more intuitive for my workflow, so here I am.

Although I am still on v4, the gui is much more aesthetically pleasing than previous versions.

I am for skins!!

(BTW, skins = everybody's happy - those who want no change shall have no change, those who want it will tweak away )

Wonder how the Cakewalk PRO team feels about this? CAKEWALK? Are you there?