f you like to compare X2 to vista, which is absolutely not appropriate  at all imo,
then X1 is like windows me
and the quality of Sonar 8.5 has never been reached by microsoft,
to paint with your colours.......
 
have fun
 
 

Overall I think X2 is a fantastic product, though not flawless. Didn't use Vista so I can't comment there. What I can comment on is the comparision of an application to an OS is silly at best and the <insert insulting adjective here> at worst.
 
Posts like the OPs seem to run in cycles and typically aren't a call for assistance they're merely a call for attention, quite similar to what my children used to pull before they became adults and started solving their own problems - often with assistance from others.
 
Regards,
 

mattplaysguitar

John
 You're right in implying that Vista was the precursor to Windows 8.   

Correction - You're right in implying that Vista was the precursor to Windows 7

;)

I think he had it right in the first place.  Every other Microsoft OS is a complete pain in the butt. I just got a notebook with Windows 8.  I cannot stand the thing and it hasn't gotten any better after a month.  Everything else in the house is running Windows 7 or XP, and they work great and make perfect sense.
 
I worked many years for a large computer manufacturer (mainframe class systems).  The design/test cycle was about 4 years, but the marketing people believed they needed 2-year product cycles.  So we had two parallel teams.  One team always produced winners.  The other team always produced dogs.  I bet the same thing is happening at Microsoft.  How else can anybody account for Windows ME, Vista, and Windows 8?

John

daveny5
Wrong. Vista was crap. X2 was Windows 7 compared to Vista. X2A is a fine product.

No that is not accurate. I found it to a much better OS then XP. So did others. What was wrong was many tried to run it on an XP machine and not on a machine meant for Vista.
 
If your experience differs it is due to not having the right hardware to run it. Its likely you never ran Vista on good hardware and thus are only repeating what a few have said. I doubt you did any real research on the subject but if did I am open to any evidence you can provide. On the other hand if this is what you believe you may find that its time to reconsider. 

 
I agree John. While I find Windows 8 to be an overall better OS for X2. Vista64 with all the latest patches worked very well for me. Matter of fact, with the delta 1010 drivers, it actually worked better than Win8 given the fact that m-audio only had Win7 to sub for the Win 8 drivers with the delta 1010. Both worked, but Vista soared compared to Win8 on that one particular aspect. I recently changed interfaces and no longer face that issue. Vista64 also handled X2 just fine. I also had great performance with X1a. Apparently it's cool to bash Vista and X1a and not let the facts get in the way. My opinion is the OP had a big cup of coffee and decided to type something.
 
 

"Apparently it's cool to bash Vista and X1a and not let the facts get in the way." 
Absolutely accurate Musicroom.

When initially released, Vista wasn't the best of audio platforms.
After patches (especially after SP1)... Vista was a fine platform for audio.
Win7 was essentially Vista 2.0... and it was a solid audio platform from the moment it was released.
 

robert_e_bone
Thank God!  I was secretly hoping you didn't mean me.
 
WHEW! :)
 
(to the original poster - bummer)
 
Bob Bone

Bob, I like you and think that your opinions are spot on!
Clint Hoerner

Jim Roseberry
When initially released, Vista wasn't the best of audio platforms.
After patches (especially after SP1)... Vista was a fine platform for audio.
Win7 was essentially Vista 2.0... and it was a solid audio platform from the moment it was released.
 

 
Vista had some issues with GUI performance and with delayed functions that run at kernel priority - which were jamming up the real-time audio performance. Yeah, they were good good about fixing that.
 
As for Windows 7, well, it's the same subsystem introduced in Vista. I really think most folks had problem getting drivers for the new WDM/KS system early on, and the new subsystem caused a bit of issue for existing (at the time ASIO drivers - but that's history now. 
 
 

Having problems with the product indicates a user is doing something that other users who don't have the issue aren't doing. For example, if you don't edit in Take lanes trying to comp a vocal, you likely won't see the bugs there that I have. And even if you do, you STILL may not see the issues I do there. Is the user doing the wrong thing? Perhaps, but what if not? The OP should provide examples, surely.
 
But if someone sees a ghost in the machine, I don't want to be too quickly to rule that out. I see them all the time, but I'm just hoping X2b or X3 will fix them. After all, Cakewalk, I assume, has all the best ghost-hunter tools, right? I'm more frightened of software ghosts these days than normal ghosts.
 
All of these houses are haunted. That's why they're so cheap.

John
I found it to a much better OS then XP. So did others.

I was one of those others. I never had any real issues with Vista and in many ways it was beter than XP for me. ME was not up to much though.