When all the other DAWs do as much as SONAR... will their GUIs be "cluttered"?

I don't know the answer to your question, but Sonar used to have all the power in the world at your fingertips.  You could customize your screen, and have as much or as little showing in the GUI as you wanted.  The main difference in X1 is that CW removed some of the customization that we had before.  Personally, I'm less hung up about the cosmetics of the program than what is under the hood.  So far, X1 seems more stable for me, but not yet perfect.  However, my MO has changed, and in some cases I'm working faster, in others I'm working slower, and the rest is about the same.  It seems to me that CW could backtrack a little and reincorporate some of the features of previous versions without changing the cosmetics of X1 much.  Add a few more drop down menus, a few more right click choices, and bring back the buttons for save, undo, redo, cut, copy,  and paste to the control bar ( as options), and X1 will make me very happy.  As far as other DAW's go, I don't really care.  I don't have a dime invested in them.
My $.02
Lynn

Sorry, but I think the problem is quite trivial:

DAWs have become so complex, that it is essentail to get a basic, working view on your DAW desktop.
One of the reasons I disliked Cubase and looked for alternatives was that it is a long grown system, which never was thoroughly rewritten from scratch to adopt to user perspectives: rather users got used to do it the Cubase way, while learning to use new functions. The big plus of a program like Presonus Studio One is to do it the other way round and have a fresh look at how you want to use your musical tool. So they wrote it from scratch. With Sonar X1 they tried to rewrite the GUI from such a fresh perspective, without losing (especially advanced midi) functionality: that's why I jumped from Cubase there.

From my view (not meant agressive in any way) Sonar veterans just have become used to a certain view and workflow, and it is certainly surprising to which degree such long used everyday habits obviously seem to have become a kind of addiction, looked at it from the outside like I do.

This kind of debates here seem like about 80% emotional (cold turkey syndrome) and 20% constructive interchange ("I used to, or now want to be able to get xy done: how is it done in the new concept, and can it be done efficient enough?")

You can turn it back and forth as long as you wish, refusing to see the point in X1 for users like me:
for me it is exactly this new approach, which gives me a fast access to the program and it's functions, despite some issues, bugs and shortcomings (which I agree to be debated in all openness).

8.5 was much too much an interface for insiders!
And if Cubase users want to hear it or not: the same counts for Cubase users (I say this despite long Cubase use).
Programs like Logic and Studio one show where GUI/function development goes.
And X1 will work great as immediately accessable and still functional, as soon as some updates cure important issues.

I totally "get" your point, Mike.  I remember some who said that PT was so much faster because everything was driven by hot keys.  I remember some who thought Logic was best because it was infinitely configurable.  Then there were those who said that SONAR squashed their creativity because it wasn't 3-D enough.  Then another group arose that said that 3D wasn't cool because "flat" is where it's at.

I wish I could say that it is funny because SONAR has had it all for quite some time but it's becoming not so funny to me.  It's getting to be a pain when Cakewalk is trying to be all things to all people.  I wish they would decide who they want to be and who they want to sell product to and then get on with it.

Me, I prefer 100% configurability.  Right down to every menu system and widget.  Right now, I think I can work with X1, once they fix the main features that are broken and should have never slipped out the door.  A totally broken Audiosnap?  Come on, that wasn't an accidental bug that got through the RC stage.

Maybe they should have approached it with a skin system?  Pro T - SONAR, CUBESONAR, Logical SONAR, where you decide which other platform had SONAR features and made it look and act like that.

I guess for me, IMO, SONAR is so close to being all things to all people that I truly and 100% sincerely think that Cakewalk is defining the future of DAW.

I'm not sure that is the best approach to take and a lot of businesses have failed when they have tried it.  But I also know that it's someone else's enterprise and unless I'm ready to buy a majority share in the company, I will wait and see what happens just like everyone else.
 
As far as feature implementation is concerned, I like the way Beatscape is implemented.  I don't bother to install it.  I don't care if it's offered or not.  I don't care that a Video View, Step Sequencer, a Matrix view or any other beat making tool is included in SONAR either.  I would prefer that I could eliminate all of those items out of my menues and hot keys though because I don't use them and I don't want to have to wade through them in a menu or have them accidently pop up because I hit a wrong key.  I don't fault anyone for wanting those features but I just don't get into music that they would lend themselves to.

I halfway agree with your analogy.  It IS like Cake is telling a large portion of it's user base, "You bums get outta here!...your stinkin up the joint!"

I guess my thoughts on this is that the ship has Sailed. I didn't make SONAR all things to all people, Cakewalk did... and I like it for that reason.

Mike I am not sure where you are coming with that. When has CW ever not wanted to appeal to as many music oriented people as possible. My needs are way more modest than what Sonar offers. It is because I have the option of doing different things with it that appeal to me though. When I started I didn't know that I would use it for video or sound recording and processing. Yet now I do. I want a versatile DAW. One that I will never out grow. Beside the more people that find Sonar useful for their needs the better it is for me.

Then there are those that use it in a creative way. A way we or CW never thought about yet it will work just find that way. Thats how new things and ideas get out. A dynamic that can only be good for us all. I don't want to make Sonar a reserved unapproachable app that few stalwarts use or even want to use. I want it to shine as an app that everyone knows about because its powerful yet easy to use. 

I think that is where CW is going and I want to be along for the ride.

mike_mccue


HD 1920x 1080p was defined in 1983

It's so way past *last decade* that I can't imagine any reason to mention it as something having to do with the future.

Yes but you seem haven't notice that they start using HD-format commercial until rather lately? I don't know about you but I didn't have a HD TV in 1983.