I think it's about 50/50 CW and the Mac enthusiasts. Cakewalk made a nice glossy announcement - a new direction, three spotlights Sonar4You, Sonar4Life and yes, Sonar4Mac. Putting that last one on equal footing with the others was probably a mistake. At the same time, people who were already anxious to see Sonar on Mac got a bit carried away, especially those who bought into the lifetime deal banking on a total native port to Mac, because regardless of the difference between an alpha and a prototype, a full port of Platinum and continued development on Mac were never promised.

Brad Russell
That's like promising your kids a trip to Disney World, realizing you don't have the money, and then saying, "Hey, but I rebuilt the carborator in that 57 Chevy that everybody loves, and then I built a great tree fort for the next door neighbor's kids."

 
Building a tree fort for the next door neighbors kid ? 
Im not even sure how you came to that logic. your trying to say Cakewalk used resources on something other than their customers ? at least this is what I gather from this bizarre comment referencing the neighbors kid.
 
So what are those resources Cakewalk gave to someone else ?
Or do you mean Cakewalk built a tree fort for its actual user base (you know the ones who use PC).
Is that the neighbors kid ? The whole user base.. LOL.
 
 

With all due respect, Bapu, I don't think this thread was intended for people who are happy with and sticking with Windows PC's to run Sonar on. It was intended for former or potential Sonar users currently using Macs, or for people considering changing platform and was curious about running Sonar on MacOS. This thread derailed when someone said something along the lines of: "Mac sucks, why do you use s**t and HA HA HAAAAA, you failed, your computer doesn't work" and so forth, one time too many. No wonder people get a little defensive. And of course some folks will be more disapointed and less forgiving than others. And some may be very vocal about it. The first pages of this thread, however, is a really good read. I learned a lot about the project and some philosophies about software programming. Nothing wrong there, it was going fine for a while.
 
You had your fun in some posts. They didn't contribute to the discussion. Neither did some of the other posts. However, NO one tried to convert anyone over to Macs. It was rather the oposite after a while. No hard feelings here, though. Just leave it at that and let ex-Sonar/current Mac users have this thread to be a little dissapointed that Sonar isn't coming to their platform of choice.

For me, I don't have any useful opinion on the matter. However, I use a PC at home and Mac for work. The latter is company-chosen. My only wish was that I could mix/edit on the Mac while mobile and simply copy the session/project information over to Windows.

Funny. I thought the thread was about the integrity of the company.
Silly me.

Personally I have no problems with the "integrity" of the company.
Did they "jump the gun" announcing a Mac version of SONAR?
Well duh!
They've admitted as much(at least I think they have), can we please move along?
"There is nothing to see here"...
 
T
ps: Close the thread.

brconflict I don't have any useful opinion on the matter.

me neither

I don't understand the Mac vs. PC "discussions" in relationship to CW decision. CW "only" stated that they concentrate the development for Sonar on Win. Nothing else.
 
So, from another point of view, CW isn't able to port because the code is too cluttered ;) e.g. the dependencies between the software layers aren't structured (enough). And as a very provocative postulate ... the meter must know that the audio engine is running on Windows ;) Or in other words, the technical guilt is too high.
 
Maybe an architecture aspect.

chuckebaby
Building a tree fort for the next door neighbors kid ? 
Im not even sure how you came to that logic. your trying to say Cakewalk used resources on something other than their customers ? at least this is what I gather from this bizarre comment referencing the neighbors kid.
 
So what are those resources Cakewalk gave to someone else ?
Or do you mean Cakewalk built a tree fort for its actual user base (you know the ones who use PC).
Is that the neighbors kid ? The whole user base.. LOL. 

You have a valid point. Of course, Cakewalk should make it's existing user base the priority. 
 
To your point, I was referring to the subject of the announcement. They were addressing a group of people who were anxiously awaiting an alpha version that had been announced. I was merely pointing out that, from my perspective, the content of the last week's announcement could have addressed the supposed target audience more effectively. That's it.
 
BTW, I am a Cakewalk customer. I'm just not currently using the products I purchased... thousands of dollars worth of products. So, I don't exactly see myself as someone outside the Cakewalk customer base. That's why I still come to this forum. I've always enjoyed the community here. In that spirt, I don't see any reason my voice shouldn't be heard.

I think Cakewalk made a valiant attempt to go this route. When we talk about priority customer base, potentially new customers are also priority. Expanding the market share is important to success. That's probably why CW offered us existing users a Lifetime of updates--so we may not feel as owed something at all times, and not in a disrespectful way. Nobody complained about it, so it was a win for us users.

When we consider Mac users, we all know PT has the market cornered in DAW's, and a vast majority of their customers use Mac's (PT is not made for Windows, I'm here to say; not a friendly relationship at all). But consider that nearly every major studio and many of the music creators love macs, that was a great thing to consider, especially considering most, if not all other DAW's run on a mac.

I applaud the openness of CW to the reality of this idea and the retraction of the effort, a welcome honesty of the company. That speaks volumes of their integrity. Will we see a version of Sonar on a mac again? Perhaps. But knowing the current alpha was a mere virtualization of a Windows-based software to be made accessible on a Mac might have really just frustrated these Mac users in lack of true performance. The third-party involved who believes this is not something of concern, should be ashamed if they weren't up-front about the performance hit. After all, for software under such huge demands you don't just port code. It needs to be native to be fully appreciated.