jsg
With 30 years of software development, it seems like an awful waste of intellectual effort and creativity to end Sonar's life and throw it in the garbage.   Though I have moved on, at least for now, to Digital Performer 9.5 (Cakewalk's demise was a strong and quick motivator for me to really get serious about learning DP), I still think Sonar has the best ergonomics and best aesthetics of any DAW on the market, by far.
 
I hope Sonar somehow, someway, reappears in the marketplace.  30 years of code should not be wasted, no matter how short-sighted Gibson may be.
 
I used Sonar for 25 years and am very grateful to the many people who made it happen.  Thank you!
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 

Sonar will almost certainly work for a number of years, just look at how many of the people posting are not on the latest version, there's a lot of people using quite old versions.
 
Like you I chose to move on and have purchased Cubase, it's taking a bit of getting used to but my conclusion is that Sonar is not better just different. Yesterday I got my LaunchControl setup in Cubase and once I stopped trying to make it work the way that it did in Sonar discovered that it is really easy to do some things that I never managed in Sonar. 
 
I have started Sonar a few times and I have no plans to uninstall it because I can still see me using it for some tasks.

The history of software is littered with abandoned code, much of it excellent code that people used and loved. Hard to get sentimental about it really. 
 

mosspa
Digital Performer is probably still the best DAW for soundtracking video.  Mixcraft is also undoubtedly in 2nd place (but will probably continue to improve).  I decided to give DP a try after the SONAR fiasco, after over an hour of it trying to resolve all of my VST and VSTi plug-ins, I just gave up on it.

That's not normal, I installed DP 9.5 on Windows 7-64 bit and all of my VSTs work fine.  Make sure you pointed DP to the right folder(s) where your VSTs are...
 

There is lots of great code in sonar, but with so many decades if bloats and adaptations to make old and new work together, the code is likely a huge mess. I'm sure some aspects of that code will migrate with bakers in their new positions, even if it is conpletely under the surface.

This is the thing that I find the saddest about the whole business. All that craft and effort, currently headed for the dumpster (assuming no last ditch save, which seems increasingly unlikely).

dubdisciple
There is lots of great code in sonar, but with so many decades if bloats and adaptations to make old and new work together, the code is likely a huge mess. 

My guess is that once the dust settles a number of Cakewalk's developers will end up working for other DAW providers and some of that "great code" will be rewritten and be better than ever in a new home.
 
And if Microsoft think that the Sonar code would be a good base for their own DAW employing the developers will probably get them a better product than buying the source code even if it does take a bit longer. 

anydmusic

dubdisciple
There is lots of great code in sonar, but with so many decades if bloats and adaptations to make old and new work together, the code is likely a huge mess. 

My guess is that once the dust settles a number of Cakewalk's developers will end up working for other DAW providers and some of that "great code" will be rewritten and be better than ever in a new home.
 
And if Microsoft think that the Sonar code would be a good base for their own DAW employing the developers will probably get them a better product than buying the source code even if it does take a bit longer. 

 
I have serious doubts that Microsoft would ever consider using Sonar as a base for their own DAW. First of all, the MS job ads that someone posted on KVR, which started the whole rumor that they were planning their own DAW, talked about "the future of music creation in multiple dimensions." This suggests to me that they have something more modern in mind than a 30 year old app. It stands to reason, because the market is already saturated with DAW's that follow the same basic paradigm. To be honest I can't see a revamped Sonar regaining much of that market share. It would have to be something vastly different. 
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that what Microsoft has in mind is some kind of "fun" way to make music that's accessible to everyone - the sort of thing that they would include in Windows as part of its multimedia toolbox. Kind of like their new 3D design tools - great fun and easy to use, but you're not going to find many 3D design pros using them. 

I would not be surprised if MS bought Sonar. Starting with DOS, all (or most all) their apps were bought and then they hacked on them. Word, Excel, DirectX, all existed under different names before MS bought and bastardized them.
 
I find it a bit strange that MS only started a DAW after CW and MS did the partnering about the deep windows integration conference/video. Shades of Windows/OS2 come to mind.

Jerry, is there any similarity between editing the staff view in DP and Sonar?  Despite Sonar's shortcomings in the SV area I have learned to use it to the fullest and prefer it to Cubase because SV's horizontal scrolling works best for me when entering notes on multiple instrumental parts.  I use Contour Shuttle pro and have programed its outer ring to easily dial in note durations.  This combined with the outstanding Piano roll found in Platinum makes Sonar an incredible tool for composing.  I would never do a cross-grade and give up Sonar Platinum, but I might do a cross-grade to DP for my Cubase 7 if it were available. I had buyers remorse immediately after getting Cubase. 

Who's throwing it in the garbage?  For all you know they are licensing out patents, or offloading parts of the code so that Chinese companies can repurpose or whatever they do best!!!!!!!!

Also, expect the brand Cakewalk to be licensed to Foxcon.   I don't know about you, but I can't wait for my ProChannel Toaster Oven to arrive from Amazon Prime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!