Sonar on Mac OS X?

I switched to Mac a while ago. For some reason it upsets some Windows users when
they hear it, but I'm not here to get flamed by Osama bin Windows-Fanatic. I'm just
much happier on Mac and don't want to deal with Windows anymore, even just for
running Sonar. That leaves me with a problem though. What do I do with all my Sonar
projects?

Three questions:

1. I've been hearing rumors that Sonar is coming to OS X. Anyone here know anything
about that? If Sonar for Mac comes out, that would be the best solution.

2. Anyone know of a utility that converts Sonar projects to a native Mac format, like
a Logic project?

3. Does anyone know how well Sonar runs in the new version of Parallels (version 3)?
I've heard that it runs well, but you might need to have two midi interfaces if you want
to run a native OS X sequencer at the same time because you can't share USB devices.
Anyway, don't take my word for it, I have no direct experience. I'd appreciate hearing
from anyone running Sonar inside Parallels.

(I know I can run Sonar fine in Bootcamp. It's just, when you;re running
Bootcamp, you're running Windows. I don't want to run Windows, I want to run OS X.)

1. I've been hearing rumors that Sonar is coming to OS X. Anyone here know anything about that? If Sonar for Mac comes out, that would be the best solution.

NOT TRUE from what I've heard I would not complain if it happened though

2. Anyone know of a utility that converts Sonar projects to a native Mac format, like a Logic project?

Save files in OMF format

3. Does anyone know how well Sonar runs in the new version of Parallels (version 3)? I've heard that it runs well, but you might need to have two midi interfaces if you want to run a native OS X sequencer at the same time because you can't share USB devices. Anyway, don't take my word for it, I have no direct experience. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone running Sonar inside Parallels.

Never tried Sonar on my Mac Pro or Macbook Pro although I've been giving it some thought lately.

Odd that people get upset about your computing choices. I see that too, but almost always the other way around at work, with everyone being Linux/Mac heads.
Just ignore it... it's your choice what you use.

To try and answer your queries:
1. Not true, from the CEO of Cake himself, more than once, here and in interviews (can't remember the link... perhaps someone else knows the video link where he talks about it taking years to port and not seeing the benefit). However, that doesn't mean they won't make a DAW for the Mac, it just means that it won't be a converted/ported version of Sonar, which is infused with Windows libraries that make it prohibitively expensive from a business point of view.

2. Like Bruce said, use OMF. I'm about to be doing this back and forth between some Sonar tracks and Logic Pro tracks myself, but I've never done it before, so I can't offer direct assistance with it.

3. I don't use parallels, but at work we're using the Mac version of VMWare, which is the same idea: virtualization software. One thing I'd point out, however... when you're in a virtualized environment, you're still running Windows.
If your reasoning for moving to parallels rather than bootcamping Windows is because "when you're running Bootcamp, you're running Windows," you're misinterpreting virtualization. It IS Windows, in a virtual machine... the computer is faked out, not the operating system.
There are cases where (for chipset/driver reasons) running in a virtual machine can give a helpful compatibility layer.
I've seen that personally with some virtualized Linux distributions that wouldn't run well on the actual hardware because of this or that chipset (video, motherboard, nic card, etc.), but that run well on the same machine when running within a VM.
However, in any case, the performance will not be the same as running via bootcamp. You're sharing resources when running VMs, and you're not when your directly booting. It doesn't mean it will be bad performance, depending on the machine you have and the resources it has, but it won't be the same performance as booting one off.

Personally, I'm going the bootcamp route on my machine for DAW use, since I have no intention of dropping Windows for Mac, or Mac for Windows. I like using both, and haven't had any major heartache doing so. I haven't had a major problem on Windows in over 6 years, but mileage obviously varies.

If you want to to go virtual, parallels will let you do it, as will the VMWare solution called "Fusion." It's beta now, but working well, and it's cheap right now... $39.

Just remember one thing with virtualization: you have to make backup images of the system in a particular state, just like on Windows and Macs that aren't virtualized. It's easy, and good headache prevention. Virtualized systems suffer the same things everything else does.

There is another alternative:
Use both. That's what I do, and I find using one or the other solely a little stifling. Not trying to convert you back... just figuring that in all likelihood your Windows issues are fixable when tackled carefully. Computers are computers.

Hope this helps,
- zevo

It would be awesome if Sonar came out on a Mac I have to say. I would be happy
for at least a year ;-)

But, I have this feeling that it was born and raised in Windows-ville .. and it doesn't want
to leave town.

Hadn't you heard, "when Mac grows up, he wants to be a PC".

Hehehe.
It's a simple matter of code-cost-investment vs. return-on-investment.

The best way to write complicated code for an OS is to use as much of the OS code and libraries as possible. It's tested... it works with the OS... it's free.

If I were to write a Windows UI-based application, I'd write it in a Windows IDE, using as many built-in libraries as possible. In general, it will run better for it, and I can certainly develop for my customers quickly, since I don't have to custom code every button, every window, every file input/output.

But, once I've done that, if someone came to me and asked me to write the same basic application for a completely different operating system, which also has tons of free libraries, just like the Windows one, I'd tell them what Cake's told us: it's too expensive to port for the money returned, which is the absolute truth.
Instead, if a market were truly there (and I'm not convinced one is, frankly, in this crowded DAW world), I'd try to sell my shareholders (who hold the keys anyway) on a new application that does the same thing on this different OS. Believe it or not... that's often the cheaper and more logical route.

It won't be Sonar, if anything comes at all.
I'd welcome an app, though.

In the mean time, and perhaps even after, I simply use both (or more).

- zevo

Just from the responses I've gotten here so far, and a lot of posts
I've found doing searches in this forum, there seem to be quite
a few people who are either migrating to Mac/Logic from Sonar,
or who use both systems by dual booting, using two machines,
or whatever.

This makes me think it might be useful to set up a page or Wiki
or something specifically for this issue. A few useful topics would
be:
1. Migrating from Sonar to Logic. How to transfer projects.
2. Introduction to Logic for Sonar users. A "dictionary" that shows
for each thing you do in Sonar how to do the same thing in Logic.
3. Ideas for using Sonar and Logic for the same project, utilizing the
strengths of each. How to conveniently transfer work back and forth.

Does anyone else here see the need for such a site?

Is there an obvious place to host it? I have a commercial web site
where I could host it, if there's no other obvious place to do it.

I think that *if* Sonar were to be ported to Mac, it could conceivably raise the price level to Logic Pro 7 or thereabouts, which is about a 1000 euros IIRC. Windows users would have to pay the same, most likely, to keep things 'fair' and 'on an even keel' etc. Not exactly sure I'd be overjoyed.

I catch quite a bit of heat as well for using a Mac. Yes, it's the most expensive computer I've ever bought, but it is worth it to me. I do IT work all day and its nice to go into the studio and not have to be the IT guy all night. Windows is soooo quirky.

ORIGINAL: themidiroom

I catch quite a bit of heat as well for using a Mac. Yes, it's the most expensive computer I've ever bought, but it is worth it to me. I do IT work all day and its nice to go into the studio and not have to be the IT guy all night. Windows is soooo quirky.

Amen to that. Probably the fact that they can debug that particular hardware configuration
very very well. I hardly ever get the spinning colorwheel of death.

Lucky you - I can crash our Mac at work (we're on our third one, so it's not hardware specific) juts by looking at it.

ORIGINAL: kp

Lucky you - I can crash our Mac at work (we're on our third one, so it's not hardware specific) juts by looking at it.

Maybe if you place it on the right side of the room and give it 110 AC and 60Hz it will be happier?

I think that *if* Sonar were to be ported to Mac, it could conceivably raise the price level to Logic Pro 7 or thereabouts, which is about a 1000 euros IIRC. Windows users would have to pay the same, most likely, to keep things 'fair' and 'on an even keel' etc. Not exactly sure I'd be overjoyed.

Uh, that's a strange fear. Like any business, Cakewalk will usually sell its products for whatever price it believes maximizes its
profit over the long term. The higher the sale price, the higher the profit margin, but the smaller the sales volume. At some
price level, the total profit is maximized. A company sometimes accepts a lower total profit in order to gain a larger market
share. In any case, if Cakewalk could sell Sonar at 2 or 3 times the price without sacrificing profits and/or market share, it
would already have done so. I don't see any reason why selling in the Mac market would have any bearing on the price of
its Windows products.

Steinberg, which sells in both the Windows and Mac markets, and competes with both Sonar and Logic, would probably be
overjoyed if Cakewalk made the bizarre decision to arbitrarily raise its price on Sonar by a factor of 2 or 3. They would
surely clean up.

Selling for Mac would increase Sonar's market share and revenues at the expense of a higher development, support, and
marketing costs. That's really the only obvious business issue involved.

In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs, and Logic Express is far less expensive.
Cubase and Digital Performer, among others, compete with Logic in exactly the same way Sonar would. Do you see anything
unusual happening to the pricing of those products?

ORIGINAL: inmazevo

Hehehe.
It's a simple matter of code-cost-investment vs. return-on-investment.

The best way to write complicated code for an OS is to use as much of the OS code and libraries as possible. It's tested... it works with the OS... it's free.

If I were to write a Windows UI-based application, I'd write it in a Windows IDE, using as many built-in libraries as possible. In general, it will run better for it, and I can certainly develop for my customers quickly, since I don't have to custom code every button, every window, every file input/output.

But, once I've done that, if someone came to me and asked me to write the same basic application for a completely different operating system, which also has tons of free libraries, just like the Windows one, I'd tell them what Cake's told us: it's too expensive to port for the money returned, which is the absolute truth.
Instead, if a market were truly there (and I'm not convinced one is, frankly, in this crowded DAW world), I'd try to sell my shareholders (who hold the keys anyway) on a new application that does the same thing on this different OS. Believe it or not... that's often the cheaper and more logical route.

It won't be Sonar, if anything comes at all.
I'd welcome an app, though.

In the mean time, and perhaps even after, I simply use both (or more).

- zevo

Well, I think it ultimately is just a business decision, not a technical one. The port can be done
if expanding into the Mac market is part of the company's strategy.

Regardless of how the application is developed, if it is done competently there will be a separation
between things like GUI code and external libraries and the handling of the internal data. It's really
the only way to have a maintainable large scale software project. And also, Microsoft
has made many changes to its programming models over the years, so even if you intend only
to work with Microsoft OS's, you still need that separation. And it would be even more risky to
tie your app closely to some third party library whose future is unknown.

I'm sure that large parts of Sonar are quite OS independent. There's also the entire architecture
of the program, the data structures, the file formats, etc. that have already been worked out.
Even if they had to write the whole thing again from scratch for Mac, have that already worked
out would mean a big acceleration. Even with the GUI, the hardest part is designing it. Writing
the code for putting a button on a window can be done by an above average monkey once the
design of the GUI is set. The Mac GUI would generally be very similar to the Windows one.

Intuit stated quite emphatically that it would never support Mac. But after the release of OS X
and the reinvigoration of Apple, they decided to release Quicken and Quickbooks for Mac. Those
applications are quite non-trivial, but Intuit didn't seem to have an insurmountable problem
getting them done for OS X.

I once spoke with a developer at a software company about whether they planned to support
OS/2. (This was in 1995, when OS/2 was still somewhat viable.) This developer told me they'd
looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend. Getting the kinks out would
take a few more months if they devoted enough resources. The technical issue was minor.
The real issue was business. If they supported OS/2, they'd need to do things like print a
new manual, train their support staff in OS/2, etc. They didn't want to do those things;
that was the basis of their decision.

In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs, and Logic Express is far less expensive. Cubase and Digital Performer, among others, compete with Logic in exactly the same way Sonar would. Do you see anything unusual happening to the pricing of those products?

I just did a quick cost comparison at Sweetwater...

Apple Logic Pro 7.2 - $999.00
MOTU Digital Performer 5 - $499.97
Steinberg Cubase 4 - $799.99
Cakewalk SONAR 6 Producer Edition - $499.97

Of those four, only DP is on par price-wise with Sonar. Which I find interesting, since it's also the only one that's never been dual platform. Also interesting is that they don't seem to have a "lite" version.

Steinberg Cubase 4 Crossgrade - $439.99
MOTU Digital Performer Competitive Upgrade - $395.00
Cakewalk SONAR 6 Producer Competitive Upgrade - $399.97

All are close, but only $5 separates DP and Sonar. What's missing is a competitive upgrade for Logic. Huh.

Apple Logic Express 7 - $299.00
Steinberg Cubase Studio 4 - $399.99
Cakewalk SONAR 6 Studio Edition - $299.97

Cubase takes the $$ lead in lite versions. Hmmm...

so it's not hardware specific

must be your custom software den

Multi-platform development is enormously more difficult. It's not a linear scale, it's more like an exponential increase in complexity. You have to really think hard about whether that enormous extra effort is going to be worth the money. I don't think it would be for SONAR to try to support the Mac OS. I think that, in this market, the software is mostly the driver, not the hardware or OS. And to the extent that the OS is, Windows is far and away the dominant OS as well. So it would be a tough business decision to justify.

Not to mention that such products tend not to be optimally integrated into either platform, because of the compromises necessary to support both platforms. There are some things that are fairly easy. Over the last 14 years I've developed a huge object framework (725K lines currently) that makes all of the 'back end' stuff, meaning all things non-GUI, fairly easy to port, though even there there are serious difficulties. Our product doesn't directly use any OS calls and no OS or compiler headers are visible to it, outside of a few small 'virtual kernel' libraries that hide all of that. It's an amazingly clean system.

It also encapsulates all of the GUI stuff as well. But in the GUI, encapsulation isn't enough. We implement all of our own custom windows even (except for frame windows which are hard to get around in Windows.) Today's applications are passive in the interface, meaning that though they may have many threads running behind the scenes that are proactive, the GUI is in the control of the operating system, and the application just responds to 'events' that the OS makes it aware of (the user clicked here, this window just got bigger or smaller, a menu selection was made, etc...) There are MANY such events, and even if you encapsulate the mechanisms by which they are delivered, that doesn't deal with the issue of semantics and order of events. The events can have subtly to grossly different meanings or contexts on each platform, and they can be in quite different orders and have very different limitations as to what can be done in response to them.

This makes the GUI part quite hard to deal with on a cross-platform basis, even if you get all the back end stuff right and even if you hide all the turning wheels. And the amount of stuff you have to deal with in a modern OS to be fully integrated into it (security, power management, media formats, internationalization and localization, installers, all of the build tools which are different on each platform, etc...), it gets more and more complex, and probably purposefully because it ties the developer to the platform more strongly due to the huge effort to port (though less cynically it also provides more features to the end user.)

A DAW might have a little less difficult a time of it, because the interface is often very non-standard anyway. But still, it's a huge effort to create a complex GUI that is multi-platform and feels reasonably integrated on each platform. After doing all that work to create such a framework, we ended up on Windows only anyway, because there's just not a business argument to do otherwise. As with DAW software, in our business (home automation) the software rules. People buy whatever hardware and OS is required to run the software that they choose, because it's really what is important.

I once spoke with a developer at a software company about whether they planned to support OS/2. (This was in 1995, when OS/2 was still somewhat viable.) This developer told me they'd looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend.

Never believe that from a developer. Being one, I know that we are always overly optimistic about these things, and even then they only think about the technical issues, not the many other issues that extend beyond just hacking the code. You cannot do anything useful on a commercial product in a weekend and it will double your support and testing burden even if you somehow managed to create a completely frictionless multi-platform development scheme (which you won't.) It would require a significant commitment to support another platform on a number of fronts.

Intuit stated quite emphatically that it would never support Mac. But after the release of OS X and the reinvigoration of Apple, they decided to release Quicken and Quickbooks for Mac. Those applications are quite non-trivial, but Intuit didn't seem to have an insurmountable problem getting them done for OS X.

There are different kinds of trivial. A program like Quicken or Quickbooks is not nearly as complex as SONAR, not even close. They are actually pretty conventional programs. A program like SONAR is anything but a conventional program. Just the performance requirements alone make it an unusual type of application.

"Osama bin windows-fanatic"..........:)

There's just not a reasonable business argument for supporting the Mac when it comes to large programs like SONAR or our CQC product, where the software is the whole point. The hardware and the OS become much less significant a factor, and therefore you aren't really losing much sales by being on the dominant OS, so the large amount of money and effort you spend to support another one doesn't gain you enough to justify.

If it was justifiable, we could use our huge prior investment in the develoment of our proprietary development system, to have a significant advantage over our competitors, so we would have every incentive to do so if it was worth it. It just isn't worth it. It's not Show Friends, it's Show Business.

ORIGINAL: droddey

This developer told me they'd looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend.

Never believe that from a developer. Being one, I know that we are always overly optimistic about these things, and even then they only think about the technical issues, not the many other issues that extend beyond just hacking the code.

Every software developer starts out life a bit too optimist, overly self-confident, and with anywhere from a little bit to a lotta bit of naivete. Over time, and we're talking years, the emotional toll of the countless deathmarch project [1], unrealistic expectations of peers and superiors, and embarassing FUBARs causes the software developer to, shall we say, temper their enthusiasm for the heroics. It's a hard habit to break. Even the most seasoned professional will catch him/herself almost promising something that's almost doable.. almost... But eventually (usually) rational analysis of expectations and outcomes prevails. Usually "rational analysis" includes things like Murphy's Law, if you can imagine (and I'm being only half-facetious here).

It's kinda like when a puppy poops on the rug in the den... the owner rubs the dogs nose in the sh*t and eventually the puppy stops pooping on the rug... 'cuz, you know, having your nose rubbed in crap isn't a lot of fun. Kinda like that.

[1] See "Death March" by Ed Yourdon

And, for that matter, there's a tendency among management to listen to the most optimistic technical assessment because it validates what they want to believe, so in addition to the natural inclination there's also an office politics underpinning to the whole thing, because if you are the pessimist, the fact that you are going to be vindicated 12 months from now doesn't help right now because you're 'not a team player'. Billy says we can do it. The fact that Billy hasn't been dragged off the battle field half dead a couple times doesn't mean anything to them because they are fighting a completely different war.

ORIGINAL: droddey

Multi-platform development is enormously more difficult. It's not a linear scale, it's more like an exponential increase in complexity. You have to really think hard about whether that enormous extra effort is going to be worth the money. I don't think it would be for SONAR to try to support the Mac OS. I think that, in this market, the software is mostly the driver, not the hardware or OS. And to the extent that the OS is, Windows is far and away the dominant OS as well. So it would be a tough business decision to justify.
.
.
.

Wow, those folks at Steinberg, E-magic, Digidesign, Ableton, Sibelius, Finale, ... must be almost unimaginably brilliant to pull off such a technical tour de
force. Along with all the other companies that do cross-platform development.

In all seriousness, you haven't really made any argument any more specific than that multi-platform development is almost impossible technically, and
hardly justifiable from a business viewpoint. Yet, many companies do Windows/Mac cross-platform development, including Cakewalk with some of its
products. In fact, most music software is cross platform. So your theory must be wrong; it predicts the opposite of what we observe in the actual music
software industry. If I come up with an astronomical theory that predicts the moon is a glowing mass of nuclear reactions and the sun is rock circling the
earth, I need to rethink my theory.

So I stand by my belief that the decision to bring Sonar to Mac is not a technical impossibility, not a hopeless dream, ... just a matter of business strategy.
When someone has an argument that disproves the existence of Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools, Live, Finale, Sibelius, and a million plug ins, not to mention a
wealth of non-music software, that are all profitably developed cross platform, then I'll rethink my position.

Wow, those folks at Steinberg, E-magic, Digidesign, Ableton, Sibelius, Finale, ... must be almost unimaginably brilliant to pull off such a technical tour de force. Along with all the other companies that do cross-platform development.

Well, some of them probably started on the Mac, right? If you started on the Mac, then you do have move of an incentive to be cross platform, because you are on the immensely outnumbered OS. And I didn't say it was impossible. I've done it before myself (Windows and OS/2, and Windows and Linux.) I just said it vastly increased the complexity of the product, and it's hard to justify unless it would make for a signficant increase in revenues to make up for it.

There are X percent of people who use a given OS and won't use any product that uses the other one. That's clearly true. But X percent of 8 percent is a lot different from X percent of 92 percent. The latter is a lot larger number so it's probably a lot more worth it for someone who starts in the Mac world to do it. And unless they are going to drop their existing customer base, they have to maintain the Mac version as well.

But if you are on the 92% OS, and all you are looking to pick up is X percent of 8 percent, it's a much different business proposition, and you have no Mac users to lose. So yes, it is a business strategy, as I pointed out a number of times above. But the reason it's not necessarily a good business strategy is because of the technical issues, which translate to more resources required to deliver, which transalates to needing enough extra revenues not just to cover the extra expense, but to make money off of it. Else, it's not worth it from a business standpoint.

Not to mention that many people who might use a Mac at home may still use a Windows machine at work, and therefore have less of a barrier to acceptance of Windows based products, whereas most Windows users probably have never touched a Mac and the barreir would be higher. So the X percent is considerably smaller probably on the Mac to Windows side than the Windows to Mac side, making it that much less of a business draw. And, as I pointed out above, when the product is a very large one, and the machine is often dedicated to the task, that makes it even less likely that the OS used will drive the sale or lack thereof.

I'm all for a Cakewalk Mac DAW application, personally. I just don't think it would be wise to port Sonar.
It's not technically impossible. It's just software. It just really is expensive.

I'm actually not sure why there's a hangup on it being a Sonar port. What's wrong with a Sonar-like app from the ground up... utilizing things they can, and writing in native Mac code everything else? I haven't seen their code, but I'd guess from comments by Cake employees that it's very much a Windows app, UI and underlying logic.
I think that if people knew the difficulties of porting in today's computer world (FAR more complex than 12-15 years ago), they'd RATHER have an app that's actually custom written for the OS, be it Mac or Windows, or whatever.

If Cake writes a new DAW for Mac, though, I'd at least demo it... I'd even beta-test for them.

A couple of things to remember:
Cubase has been multi-platform since before computers reached the level of complexity we're at now. They have tons of custom code that's built up over time to work with, and very likely far fewer OS libraries.
Having come to here from Cubase for both Mac and PC, I have to say that if that's the model of what you get when you go cross-platform, I don't want to EVER do it. They drop support for things all the time... years and years now... and they generally cite cost, which frankly doesn't help the argument of having the same app for both platforms, IMHO... though, I blame most of that on Steinberg's horrific management, and not the code cost.

eMagic was in the same position as Cubase when they were doing Logic... multi-platform from way back. The first thing Apple did was drop that idea. Many think it's to get you to buy a Mac, which is probably at least a little true, but I have to think that at least some of it is the cost of maintaining such a complicated app (more complicated that Sonar, IMO). Consequently, they STILL haven't fully Apple-ized it.. it's out of place in their "pro" line, and still very much looks like an emagic app... which, 3 years on, seems a bit strange. They seem to be having such trouble with maintaining it that they CHARGE for updates, $29 for one, and $49 for the other, and the app cost twice as much a Sonar in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I've used Logic since the emagic days, starting with it on Windows actually. I love it, and use it every day, but it is behind in terms of its place in the Apple software line, by about 2 years.
One of the MANY rumors about the next version of it is that it's a complete rewrite of the app. If that actually turns out to be true, and they're particularly tight-lipped about it, it means they actually decided to drop a ton of code to start over. In my experience, that usually means that it was too complicated to maintain/extend, even on just one platform.
We're doing that at work right now, actually, with an unusually complicated bit of Java/EJB/Oracle/JDBC/JSP code. It's baked, so we're starting over.

Ableton Live is kind of like uber-project5, an yet costs $500.
I like Live as well, and might get it to pair with Logic Pro on the Mac I'm writing this from, but only because I can get it for $299 from the lite version. I'd never pay $500 for it.

Just to be clear:
I really would support a Cake Mac DAW. My point is simply that it should be a different app, not a port of Sonar, though some degree of project compatibility would be nice.
If they can make some money off it without hurting existing Sonar customers, cool.

Take care, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil (rare in this type of chat).
- zevo

ORIGINAL: inmazevo
I'm actually not sure why there's a hangup on it being a Sonar port. What's wrong with a Sonar-like app from the ground up... utilizing things they can, and writing in native Mac code everything else?

Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier
for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac. I've been using Logic since I switched. If Sonar came to
Mac, I might use it but I'd probably stick with Logic. Logic is pretty powerful, once you get the hang of it. I'm not even
thinking about that. It's not a matter of being so enamored of Sonar that I'm dying for it to come to Mac, or dying for
another Mac music application. The Mac has enough music software. I just happened to have had the bad luck of using
one of the few Windows music apps that wasn't cross-platform. I never even liked Sonar that much. And I'm pretty
indifferent to what Cakewalk does apart from that.

There seem to be a lot of people who use multiple sequencers, even on multiple platforms. In the past, I've used just
about every OS that's ever been released to the public. That's not my thinking right now. I'm at a point where I'm very
intent on simplifying my life. I just want to use one stable, powerful sequencer on one stable, powerful OS.

Don't get me wrong, I've used Logic since the emagic days, starting with it on Windows actually. I love it, and use it every day, but it is behind in terms of its place in the Apple software line, by about 2 years.
One of the MANY rumors about the next version of it is that it's a complete rewrite of the app. If that actually turns out to be true, and they're particularly tight-lipped about it, it means they actually decided to drop a ton of code to start over. In my experience, that usually means that it was too complicated to maintain/extend, even on just one platform.
We're doing that at work right now, actually, with an unusually complicated bit of Java/EJB/Oracle/JDBC/JSP code. It's baked, so we're starting over.

Yes, I agree Logic needs to be rewritten, at least the GUI, but I don't know if there's anything so wrong with the code. It's just that the Logic
interface is too unconventional. It's not a standard Windows interface, it's not a standard Mac interface. When you get the
hang of it, you find some very powerful stuff. But that's not Apple's philosophy (and really shouldn't be anyone's philosophy).
Logic doesn't even follow Apple's published user interface standards. GarageBand uses the same audio engine as Logic, but
people pick up GarageBand instantly without needing to look at a manual. That's how Logic needs to be. Not that it needs to
drop any of the power. It just needs to be transparent and standard. Also, it would be really nice if it had a dedicated AppleScript
API, and ... well, I'll leave it for another thread.

But I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with being cross-platform specifically. It's not hard to believe Apple dropped
the Windows version for strategic reasons. Nasty, but quite plausible. There's some strategy there of producing the iLife apps for
entry level use, then matching them with Pro apps, all tied to the Mac platform. They used the code to build GarageBand, which
has actually been quite successful at luring new musicians to the Mac platform. Apple probably also thought that with their enormous
R&D resources, they could turn Logic into the most kick ass music app the world has ever seen. I'm very curious to see what
they do come up with in Logic 8. I'll be happy if it's just a nice repackaging of Logic 7 in a standard interface with a few new bells.

In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs,

I took the list price off their website - so that's not my 'claim'.

Furthermore, such a port would take resources and money, which has to be recovered, wouldn't you think? Making only Apple users pay more for a ported version would be pretty unusual, companies usually keep their cross-platform products more or less evenly priced IMO. So, in my view that wouldl mean the only way is up, price-wise.

Don't see what's so 'strange' about that at all.

Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac.

Back on topic I'll be installing Parallels with a copy of XP Pro later this morning. My intention is to install Sonar and P5 I know they won't work with my main audio system Protools HD2 but I'll consider it a success if they run with the internal sound card on my Mac Pro. Just like yourself I have years of projects developed using Cakewalk products like Pro Audio and Sonar since it was released. I'm also going to examine other tools such as CD/DVD Architect from Sony and if time permits Vegas Video.


I'll post my results later in the day and thanks to Morelli your post provided the motivation to finally run the tests for myself.

ORIGINAL: BruceEnnis

Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac.

Back on topic I'll be installing Parallels with a copy of XP Pro later this morning. My intention is to install Sonar and P5 I know they won't work with my main audio system Protools HD2 but I'll consider it a success if they run with the internal sound card on my Mac Pro. Just like yourself I have years of projects developed using Cakewalk products like Pro Audio and Sonar since it was released. I'm also going to examine other tools such as CD/DVD Architect from Sony and if time permits Vegas Video.


I'll post my results later in the day and thanks to Morelli your post provided the motivation to finally run the tests for myself.

That would be the perfect solution for just opening up Sonar (etc..,) files on a mac with out Windows. But, from what I've read, the performance suffers too much for real use. I'd be very interested in your results....

That's how Logic needs to be. Not that it needs to
drop any of the power. It just needs to be transparent and standard. Also, it would be really nice if it had a dedicated AppleScript
API, and ... well, I'll leave it for another thread.

Not here I hope...

Not here I hope...

I agree completely with that sentiment. Maybe try finding some above average monkeys in the local zoo, or program some conversion tooly yourself, if you can. I could, but I detest the air of arrogance surrounding Macs, sorry. Hope they'll do it for peanuts, over a lost weekend.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs,

I took the list price off their website - so that's not my 'claim'.

Furthermore, such a port would take resources and money, which has to be recovered, wouldn't you think? Making only Apple users pay more for a ported version would be pretty unusual, companies usually keep their cross-platform products more or less evenly priced IMO. So, in my view that wouldl mean the only way is up, price-wise.

Don't see what's so 'strange' about that at all.

No. Before you were saying that Cakewalk would raise the price of Sonar to match the price of Logic.
Since Cubase and Digital Performer don't do that, there's no reason to expect Sonar would. And Sonar
could not sustain a price that high. If it could, it would already be selling its Windows version for that
price.

Now you're saying something different. Now you are saying that Cakewalk would ask its customers to
subsidize a Mac port of Sonar by raising the price of Sonar (for both Windows and Mac). That would
never happen. If the Mac sales did not support the development cost of the port, Cakewalk would not
do the port. If the company was short on the money needed for the port, but felt the port was a
good investment, it's still very unlikely they'd raise the price of Sonar. They'd much more likely do
what most businesses do when they want to make an investment. They raise capital by going to
a bank, or investors, or selling stock in the company, or whatever.

surely this is all pointless anyway, since intel macs and bootcamp??? the perceived advantages of Macs, IMO, have been fairly well negated by stable Windows releases. but i don't care, i'm used to pcs, they're fairly cheap and my new laptop with vista is utterly reliable. and if someone wants an iMac, fine, good luck to them. why do we have this whole debate every week?
sorry, it's as pointless as the Soundblaster audio cards debate.

right, that's better.

They'd much more likely do what most businesses do when they want to make an investment. They raise capital by going to
a bank, or investors, or selling stock in the company, or whatever.

I wouldn't see investors being too likely. Venture capital doesn't invest in things like that. They invest in large, breaking markets where they can get a huge enough ROI to make up for the 20 other failures that they have for each winner. And, personally, if it was my company, I'd not be willing to give up any equity to raise money for such a thing unless there was going to be a considerably payoff, which I just don't believe is going to happen, for the reasons already given.

And I also agree that there's not much technical advantage anymore to being on the Mac. For that matter, the increased stability of the Mac was always a bit overstated. I've read many books on the history of my industry, and a lot of them cover Apple, because it was such a tale of Shakespearean tragedy. In all cases, they indicated that the Mac of the Win95/98 era wasn't a lot more stable. These days of course I'm sure it's infinitely better, but so XP is also very stable and capable now as well.

So it still comes down to would they increase their revenues enough to justify doing it, and I just can't see how it would come remotely close.

Now you are saying that Cakewalk would ask its customers to
subsidize a Mac port of Sonar by raising the price of Sonar (for both Windows and Mac). That would
never happen.

I'm not really saying anything different: the port will take quite a bit of money, which has to come back somehow, Mac users are used to paying more for their software, and similar products on the Mac have a higher listprice than Sonar.

Actually, software producers in the game world have already done EXACTLY that what I quoted, although that was with PC/Xbox versions of games. Prey users will have to pay for their upgrade/patch, since the makers 'contractually' cannot give Xbox users a free upgrade/patch, and 'fair is fair' etc.

ORIGINAL: BruceEnnis

Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac.

Back on topic I'll be installing Parallels with a copy of XP Pro later this morning. My intention is to install Sonar and P5 I know they won't work with my main audio system Protools HD2 but I'll consider it a success if they run with the internal sound card on my Mac Pro. Just like yourself I have years of projects developed using Cakewalk products like Pro Audio and Sonar since it was released. I'm also going to examine other tools such as CD/DVD Architect from Sony and if time permits Vegas Video.

I'll post my results later in the day and thanks to Morelli your post provided the motivation to finally run the tests for myself.

Cool, thanks Bruce.
I'm bootcamping as we speak, since I just ditched my iMac for a Macbook for the portability of it. Hopefully, it will allow me to also get rid of my brick of a Dell 17" that I NEVER take mobile due to it's utter size (what was I thinking?).

FWIW, I'll post my stuff too... Project5 & Sonar 6PE, using the built-in sound card (I'm a little worried about this one, and hoping the ASIO4FREE/ASIO4ALL drivers will work with it. We'll see.

Take care,
- zevo

Well I’ve been testing most of the day initial thoughts on Parallels are it’s ok for standard software packages. When it comes to audio tools like Sonar and P5 it starts to show its flaws. The most annoying was regardless of driver capabilities I was forced to use MME. Another big deficit was no Firewire support this rules out all of the better audio interfaces. Next on my list would be the limitation of only 2 USB devices in use at any given time Parallels lists all of USB devices but only 2 can be active at a time. On a positive note I did install the Frontier Design Transport in Sonar worked like a charm.

Overall I found editing in Sonar 6 is working about the same as my AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4800+. However I would not attempt to record using Parallels due to it high latency. As for P5 v2 everything was looking good until I installed the upgrade it’s now failing during startup due to Audio card driver errors.

This is obviously a work in progress I’ll continue to install my windows applications and see just how everything turns out.

Here’s a screen shot of Sonar 6 with a small project running

ORIGINAL: BruceEnnis

Well I’ve been testing most of the day initial thoughts on Parallels are it’s ok for standard software packages. When it comes to audio tools like Sonar and P5 it starts to show its flaws. The most annoying was regardless of driver capabilities I was forced to use MME. Another big deficit was no Firewire support this rules out all of the better audio interfaces. Next on my list would be the limitation of only 2 USB devices in use at any given time Parallels lists all of USB devices but only 2 can be active at a time. On a positive note I did install the Frontier Design Transport in Sonar worked like a charm.

Overall I found editing in Sonar 6 is working about the same as my AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4800+. However I would not attempt to record using Parallels due to it high latency. As for P5 v2 everything was looking good until I installed the upgrade it’s now failing during startup due to Audio card driver errors.

This is obviously a work in progress I’ll continue to install my windows applications and see just how everything turns out.

That is pretty cool. Do all the VSt's and plug ins work like normal too? So the only down side is the high latency using mme? I can live with that to just mix and record into a different app.


But this gives me a bright idea and a question;
Cakewalk should get together with Parallels and iron out the kinks. That would seem to resolve the issue of porting over and it should be way cheaper that a full port or a new app. Then Sonar would be mac compatible with minimal fuss! It's seems like with Parallels; it's almost there!

What's the advantage of running Sonar and P5 in Parallels? What are you gaining?

I'm not understanding the need to run PC apps on Mac (which is running windows !!??)

ORIGINAL: BruceEnnis

Overall I found editing in Sonar 6 is working about the same as my AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4800+. However I would not attempt to record using Parallels due to it high latency. As for P5 v2 everything was looking good until I installed the upgrade it’s now failing during startup due to Audio card driver errors.

OK, this is wonderful news. This confirms what I've heard but haven't been able to verify before. I don't care about recording, because I
don't foresee initiating any new projects in Sonar. This is just to facilitate the conversion of my existing Sonar projects to Logic. On the other hand,
I have heard that people have been able to use Sonar for recording, with the proviso that you can't share interfaces with OS X apps. But
people have very different sensitivity to latency.

By the way, which version of Parallels are you using? Is it the new version 3?

ORIGINAL: Modulation

But this gives me a bright idea and a question;
Cakewalk should get together with Parallels and iron out the kinks. That would seem to resolve the issue of porting over and it should be way cheaper that a full port or a new app. Then Sonar would be mac compatible with minimal fuss! It's seems like with Parallels; it's almost there!

Well, I don't think that's going to happen. Very few people would be buying Sonar to run under Parallels.
Personally, I don't see anything so compelling about Sonar that people would want to do that, when there
are at least 3 leading native sequencers available. This would mostly be a transitional tool to help people
converting to native Mac sequencers. I can't see any rationale for Cakewalk facilitating that.

If you really want to see the Windows Sonar running under OS X, I suggest you check out the Codeweavers
Crossover Mac product. That product essentially turns a Windows app into a Mac app, by implementing the
Windows API under OS X. Once Codeweavers implements everything Sonar uses from the Windows API,
Sonar becomes essentially a Mac app. That would be a better solution than running Sonar inside a VM.
The goal is that one day they finish implementing all of the Windows API, so every Windows app
would become a Mac and a Linux app. They still have a lot to do, but they have enough done
that Office for Windows runs correctly on Mac and Linux.

So if you care enough about this, make a pledge to Codeweavers on behalf of Sonar. If they get enough
pledges, they could decide to prioritize the APIs that Sonar uses, so Sonar starts running sooner.

As for myself, I don't really care about having Sonar on Mac, apart from converting my projects to Logic,
which apparently I can already do with Parallels.

It's conceivable, though unlikely, that Cakewalk would assist Codeweavers in getting Sonar fully
supported by Crossover. In principle, they'd then have a Mac and a Linux version of Sonar for practically
no work. In practice, I would expect few Mac and Linux users would become new Sonar users.

ORIGINAL: morelli


Well, I don't think that's going to happen. Very few people would be buying Sonar to run under Parallels.
Personally, I don't see anything so compelling about Sonar that people would want to do that, when there
are at least 3 leading native sequencers available. This would mostly be a transitional tool to help people
converting to native Mac sequencers. I can't see any rationale for Cakewalk facilitating that.

If you really want to see the Windows Sonar running under OS X, I suggest you check out the Codeweavers
Crossover Mac product. That product essentially turns a Windows app into a Mac app, by implementing the
Windows API under OS X. Once Codeweavers implements everything Sonar uses from the Windows API,
Sonar becomes essentially a Mac app. That would be a better solution than running Sonar inside a VM.
The goal is that one day they finish implementing all of the Windows API, so every Windows app
would become a Mac and a Linux app. They still have a lot to do, but they have enough done
that Office for Windows runs correctly on Mac and Linux.

So if you care enough about this, make a pledge to Code weavers on behalf of Sonar. If they get enough
pledges, they could decide to prioritize the APIs that Sonar uses, so Sonar starts running sooner.

As for myself, I don't really care about having Sonar on Mac, apart from converting my projects to Logic,
which apparently I can already do with Parallels.

It's conceivable, though unlikely, that Cakewalk would assist Codeweavers in getting Sonar fully
supported by Crossover. In principle, they'd then have a Mac and a Linux version of Sonar for practically
no work. In practice, I would expect few Mac and Linux users would become new Sonar users.

Very, very interesting. Codeweavers sounds even better. The only real reason I would want to use Sonar on a mac (OS that is) is because I don't want to shell out another grand for logic or $500 or so for DP or the other sequencer. And dual booting into bootcamp is a work around, but...not very elegant. Plus having to repurchase my non mac plug ins or programs. And I really like Sonar, even though they all do the same thing pretty much now. I'm used to Sonar and there are some features I really like.
I guess it would be easy enough to dual boot into bootcamp. That would only be the cost of bootcamp and xp.


But still...Why can't Cakewalk get toghether with Codeweavers and make this happen? Why not run on the OS that most pros use?

Seems to me like the perfect solution from Cakewalks cost and effort POV.

ORIGINAL: Modulation

...Why not run on the OS that most pros use?...

Huh??? [sm=rolleyes.gif][sm=rolleyes.gif][sm=rolleyes.gif]

I think that's statistically impossible to be true.

By the way, which version of Parallels are you using? Is it the new version 3?

Yes I downloaded the Trial version of 3 and installed an existing version of Win XP Pro I had here at the house. Actually I was very surprised that when I registered XP on the Mac it did so without any complaints.

What's the advantage of running Sonar and P5 in Parallels? What are you gaining?

I'm not understanding the need to run PC apps on Mac (which is running windows !!??)

Both myself and "morelli" have switched from Windows systems to Mac. Don't get me wrong I'm not unhappy with my decision or switching from PC to Mac. This does offer a solution on migrating 10 years of work done with Cakewalk products. Also working with clients using Windows based software without the purchase of another system plus reduces the number of computers in the studio.

Overall I found editing in Sonar 6 is working about the same as my AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4800+.

Bruce,
Is this on your macbook?

ORIGINAL: WhyBe

ORIGINAL: Modulation

...Why not run on the OS that most pros use?...

Huh??? [sm=rolleyes.gif][sm=rolleyes.gif][sm=rolleyes.gif]

I think that's statistically impossible to be true.

Well.. I don't know if anyone has called every studio or every person producing professionally ( not in your basement or garage :)), but it's pretty much accepted common knowledge that macs are what pros use. That has been my experience as well. Though I do know two charting artist that uses a PC (acid). Otherwise, all the others I've met (a handful, so not scientific) use macs. And, if money where no object, I think most musicians would get a mac too. But PC's are fine and get the job done. I like PC's. I've built all my computers and can fix anyone if there is a problem by at worst swapping out parts. But there is something about not messing w/any of that and just making music.

Is this on your macbook?

I ran these tests on my Mac Pro specs are below:

3.00 GHz Quad Xeon
4GB 667 DDR2 FB DIMM ECC-4x1GB
2x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
2x 19" NEC LCD92VX-BK Monitors
4x 500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s drive
16x SuperDrive DL (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
3x PCI Express
10/100/1000 BASE-T
Airprt Extrm & BT 2.0+EDR
5x USB 2.0
2x USB 1.1 on keyboard
2x Firewire 400
2x Firewire 800
Audio
Mac OS X 10.4.10

Digidesign HD 2
Magma PCIe into 13 Slot PCI chassis with 4x UAD-1 cards

ORIGINAL: droddey

Well, some of them probably started on the Mac, right? If you started on the Mac, then you do have move of an incentive to be cross platform, because you are on the immensely outnumbered OS. And I didn't say it was impossible. I've done it before myself (Windows and OS/2, and Windows and Linux.) I just said it vastly increased the complexity of the product, and it's hard to justify unless it would make for a signficant increase in revenues to make up for it.

There are X percent of people who use a given OS and won't use any product that uses the other one. That's clearly true. But X percent of 8 percent is a lot different from X percent of 92 percent. The latter is a lot larger number so it's probably a lot more worth it for someone who starts in the Mac world to do it. And unless they are going to drop their existing customer base, they have to maintain the Mac version as well.
...

Ah. This is starting to make a little more sense to me. I've been trying to figure out why you're saying that cross-platform
development is too hard and not a good business move for a music software company, while most Windows music
software is in fact cross-platform, including some of Cakewalk's own software. When someone repeatedly and emphatically presents
abstract arguments for a position that contradicts reality, it poses an interesting puzzle. I remember reading of Galileo's
frustration dealing with academic scholars who believed heavenly bodies were perfect spheres. While he'd beg them to
simply look through his telescope to see the craters on the moon, they would refuse, and go on expounding their
metaphysical proofs that no such craters could exist. I think in your case, you've looked through the telescope, but it was
pointing in the wrong direction.

You sell some kind of Windows software and you're under the impression that 92 percent of buyers are running Windows.
Well, maybe 92 percent of spreadsheet users are using Windows, and maybe 92 percent of users of your kind of software are using
Windows, but it's certainly not true that 92 percent of music software users are running Windows. That would mean
more than 10 times as many people doing music on Windows than Mac, which is not in agreement with my
experience.

I own a business that sells music gear and I can assure you, there are a lot of Mac users among musicians. I don't know
exactly what the ratio is between Windows and Mac for music, but it's not 10 to 1. I've been taking it for granted
that you realized this.

So this seems to be where the disconnect is occurring. Actually, from my point of view, it's not so much about needing a
business justification for making a Mac version of something, as it is about needing a good business justification for
not making one. I don't know whether Cakewalk has such a justification. That's their business. But I don't think you know
either.

I don't know
exactly what the ratio is between Windows and Mac for music, but it's not 10 to 1. I've been taking it for granted
that you realized this.

ahhh...don't make that assumption here in windows land...save your energy on this one bro...SONAR is a confirmed Windows product, for better or for worse.

I've just been monitoring this thread because getting involved in a Mac vs. PC debate always ends up bad. Dude, so you are saying that a "Mac= Galileo, PC= the unbelievers in what ultimately is proven to be the truth" analogy is valid here....or EVER??? Wow, talk about arrogance and dickheadishness. I love Macs, but now you are just insulting people.

When someone repeatedly and emphatically presents
abstract arguments for a position that contradicts reality, it poses an interesting puzzle.

So you think spewing such nonsense makes you look smart? Yikes. Well, it IS a Mac vs. PC thread, so it had to end up where you took it. But dude, chill with the insults and the irresponsibly bad historical analogies man...

Now, back to the argument...uh...thread at hand...

ORIGINAL: morelli
Actually, from my point of view, it's not so much about needing a
business justification for making a Mac version of something, as it is about needing a good business justification for
not making one. I don't know whether Cakewalk has such a justification. That's their business. But I don't think you know
either.

SONAR is a windows app, from the ground up. To port SONAR to OS X would require a rewrite, of at least the GUI framework, from the ground. Unless platform abstractions are in place from day 1, even separating the "GUI" from the "engine" of a windows app is... well, a windows app is a windows app, and we'll leave it at that. Even down at the core audio engine level, you're talking about managing threads and queues and memory buffers and device interface abstractions in very windows-specific manners. On top of that you have the requirement to run in realtime with very specific tolerences for how long certain tasks should take, priorities of GUI activity over audio engine activity, optimizing CPU and disk overhead, minimizing blocking/thrashing due to synchronization, etc. This is fundamentally different than how a spreadsheet or a vector graphics application works, which just sit there staring back at you..

A Mac port would require decomposing the app into the very windows-specific stuff and the somewhat windows-specific stuff, replacing the somewhat windows-specific stuff with cross-platform frameworks, introducing platform abstractions, etc., etc.... you're looking at rewriting the app.

So the question isn't "is there a business justification for running on mac?"... the question is "how much is the business willing to spend to make it happen?". Keep in mind you're starting with a fixed set of windows programmers, sales/marketing resources, capital investment in hardware and floor space for development and testing, fixed size beta test team, etc. --- let's add all that up and call it "X". If you want to develop for a totally new OS, then you need shell out to support "2X" -- you need twice as many programmers and testers (roughly), twice the beta team size, twice as many managers (to manage twice as many resources), twice the floor space to fit all those additional seats and desks, etc. For a company the size of cakewalk (on the order of $10 mil annual revenue), doubling your overhead is a tremendous commitment. For a company with annual revenue $100 mil, maybe it's not such a big deal.

I'm sure cakewalk product development has been aware for years of the role that Mac plays in the music market -- and they've concluded that making up for what they lose in the Mac market is simply not worth the additional exorbitant costs of doing parallel product development. I'm sue they'd like to support Mac to get as many customers as possible (and what company wouldn't want that), but the cost is too high.

Perhaps with OS X being light years beyond what MacOS ever was they're in the process of revisiting those conclusions... I would not rule out a OS X port, but with the embracing of Vista it certainly looks unlikely at this juncture. Personally, I didn't agree with reprioritizing to support Mac, but increasingly I would actually prefer to have the option! If MS keeps going on this "entertainment PC" thing, then I'm a little afraid of where the PC OS world is going to be 8 years from now...

It always blows me away how much people care about an OS. To me it makes so little difference, I care about the actual application I'm running! Once I'm in Sonar the OS doesn't really matter anymore, does it? Now, if I can get fast hardware, that I can fix/upgrade myself, with a stable OS (XP is as stable as OS's get), in ANY kind of case, for less money, why in the world would I buy a MAC? Or why would I care about Vista for that matter? I think the world is really in trouble with its obsession with form.....

Rico

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

It always blows me away how much people care about an OS. To me it makes so little difference, I care about the actual application I'm running! Once I'm in Sonar the OS doesn't really matter anymore, does it? Now, if I can get fast hardware, that I can fix/upgrade myself, with a stable OS (XP is as stable as OS's get), in ANY kind of case, for less money, why in the world would I buy a MAC? Or why would I care about Vista for that matter? I think the world is really in trouble with its obsession with form.....

Rico

Why not buy clothes from walmart then? Or just use Beringer gear. They do the same thing and get the job done right?

Who cares why someone wants a mac. Most of the arguments against macs involve "PC's are cheaper". Sometimes, people want the luxury. Once I sign my 7 million dollar deal, you can bet I won't be monkeying around with PC's anymore.

Why not buy clothes from walmart then? Or just use Beringer gear. They do the same thing and get the job done right?

Who cares why someone wants a mac. Most of the arguments against macs involve "PC's are cheaper". Sometimes, people want the luxury. Once I sign my 7 million dollar deal, you can bet I won't be monkeying around with PC's anymore.



I actually buy clothes from Goodwill! They have t-shirts a lot cooler than just about any other place, for $1.99 a piece! I have bought some Behringer gear and made recordings with it that sound as good as my buddy makes with his Neve/Apogee stuff; he knows what he's doing BTW.

The point is, when something costs more AND it's worth it (meaning it is actually BETTER), by all means buy it; when it's just about looks and design, you're an idiot if you spend more than you have to, unless you have money to burn. I can't begin to tell you how many musicians I know here in L.A. that run old macs because they can't afford to buy a new one. They are seriously limiting themselves by hanging on to their G4's............ Or, they buy a $3000 machine, and don't have money to buy mics/pres/etc.......

Rico

You sell some kind of Windows software and you're under the impression that 92 percent of buyers are running Windows.
Well, maybe 92 percent of spreadsheet users are using Windows, and maybe 92 percent of users of your kind of software are using
Windows, but it's certainly not true that 92 percent of music software users are running Windows. That would mean more than 10 times as many people doing music on Windows than Mac, which is not in agreement with my experience.

And it's not about what percentage of people are using what OS in my kind of software. It's that, as I've said now 3 times at least, when the product is one like my kind of software (home automation) or a DAW like SONAR, where it is likely to be the overwhelming if not total purpose of the machine it's on, the OS makes a lot less difference that the software. And since almost every single person will have experience with Windows, even if they prefer the Mac, the barrier of acceptance is even lower.

So the question is, if we put in X amount of effort to make the product cross platform, what does it buy us? The answer is likely to be not enough to justify it. If someone things that SONAR is really the DAW software that offers them what they want, the fact that it's Windows only probably isn't a huge barrier, so best case, you are only going to increase your market by the number of people who wouldn't have come over otherwise and who wouldn't use use some other product on the Mac anyway.

This just makes it a hard sell to justify putting in the huge effort. If they'd started from day one with a desire to be cross platform, and had spent all these years building up the product with that in mind, it would be a much different story. If it was *easy*, then pretty much any amount of additional revenues would make it worth it. But that doesn't seem to be the case, and the work required to get it there at this point would be huge, and would probably bring the product almost to a stop for a major release period because the complexity of a large rewrite at the same time as the mainline product moves forward would be a serious technical and managerial struggle.

If you are a product primarily selling on the Mac side or starting on the Mac side, the yes it does make a difference. Because now the number of new potential customers is the number of people who would have come from the Windows side and who wouldn't use some other Windows based product if yours was available. The barrier is a lot higher because all those Windows people probably have zero exposure to the Mac. So it would be a much bigger stretch for them to move over, so getting your product onto the Windows platform could make a big difference for you. And probably you were forced long ago to consider this problem and start working towards a portable solution, since the Mac's market percentage hit it's current low point over ten years ago, right?

They could probably do it in slow incremental steps, over a few years, by slowly changing the underlying architecture in a way that we don't see, slowly adding abstractions for all the system services. But I've done that and it's a big job. I spent over 12 years building ours, and it would still be quite a compromise to do a heavily GUI oriented multi-platform product. A server side product wouldn't be much trouble. But SONAR is fairly heavily GUI based, and probably has quite a few hooks into lower level OS services in order to maintain performance, and that would probably make for porting difficulties as well.

Anyway, I don't see the business justification for it at this point. The new business doesn't seem likely to be worth the cost and effort required.

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

I have bought some Behringer gear and made recordings with it that sound as good as my buddy makes with his Neve/Apogee stuff; he knows what he's doing BTW.

That's an interesting statement. My experience has been that Behringer equipment can be quite good, but it's not Neve or Apogee, not by a longshot.
I would be curious to know, long-term (i.e. over a 5-year period), as you do more recording and have access to better equipment, whether your ears still tell you that your recordings made on Behringer equipment rival your buddy's recordings made with Neve and Apogee equipment. My own personal observation has been that over the course of time, two factors have changed my perception:

1) As my ears have improved, I have become more aware of subtle differences in the "air" of a good microphone, the smoothness of a high-quality reverb, the transparent or colored nature of a top-notch preamp. I was not always able to hear these distinctions, but I can now.

2) As my monitoring system - not only speakers and amplifier but audio interface and headphone amp as well - has improved through periodic upgrades, it has revealed more of these details. There are differences in detail between equipment that I can't identify on my home stereo, in my car, or on my old rig, but with higher-quality converters, a more stable master clock, and better listening devices I can now hear the differences in my studio.

Will the typical music listener be able to hear the difference? It depends on what they're listening on, but the unfortunate answer is, "probably not." However, I know that if I'm mixing on a system and with equipment that is the best I can find or afford at the moment, that gives me a better shot at having that mix sound good *anywhere*, even if an audiophile with a $30,000 listening system buys the record.

I'm not trying to suggest that you're not getting fantastic results with Behringer; I'm just proposing that perhaps there is more difference than what your equipment or your ears currently permit you to distinguish.

ORIGINAL: morelli
3. Does anyone know how well Sonar runs in the new version of Parallels (version 3)?
I've heard that it runs well, but you might need to have two midi interfaces if you want
to run a native OS X sequencer at the same time because you can't share USB devices.
Anyway, don't take my word for it, I have no direct experience. I'd appreciate hearing
from anyone running Sonar inside Parallels.

Sorry I'm late to the discussion...

One or two others in this thread have already made some of these observations, but here goes:

Overall, I've been quite impressed with my ability to run SONAR inside Parallels on a MacBook Pro. As a virtual machine, Parallels has turned out to be quite efficient, with certain limitations. For one, I had to install ASIO4ALL to get reliable performance from the virtual sound card driver... but I can now access my MacBook Pro's internal sound card for playback *and* recording, and if I assign Mac playback to an Mbox 2 inside OSX, then I hear SONAR through that as well. I only recently updated Parallels to version 3, and I haven't tried using the Mbox 2 directly as a USB device within Parallels yet, but it did not work properly in Parallels version 2.

Using ASIO4ALL with the internal sound card, playback and recording are quite stable at a buffer size of 1024, but anything below that gets a little clicky. I don't mind lowering the latency and getting some clicks to do short spurts of softsynth tracking, but it's not like having a dedicated low-latency interface. I also made sure to ditch Parallels' built-in soundcard driver, and install the Realtek drivers directly from their website. Again, I'm curious to see how the Mbox 2 behaves in Parallels version 3, but haven't had a moment to test it yet.

Otherwise, SONAR behaves quite nicely. Just be sure to treat your virtualized Windows install with the same level of technical savvy and optimization that you would do for a dedicated PC box. It's still Windows, with all it's quirks; it's just not a physical computer that it's running on.

I wouldn't expect Cakewalk to port SONAR to Mac unless it became evident that the PC audio market was dying, which is currently not the case. Since virtualization technology is good - and getting better all the time - there is a decreasing (not increasing) need for porting, which (one would expect) would diminish the demand for a port.

As others have said, pick your app, then pick your platform. I'm pretty married to SONAR at this point, so... PC it is.

As for stability - if you set up your PC as a DAW, and treat it with the same respect as any mission-critical machine, it will be stable and stay stable. I've been doing this for over a decade and OS stability has never been a concern. Where OS stability becomes a problem is when you start installing all kinds of untested apps on the machine. Sooner or later something will become a problem. This is true for Macs, PCs, and every other computer made.

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter



I actually buy clothes from Goodwill! They have t-shirts a lot cooler than just about any other place, for $1.99 a piece! I have bought some Behringer gear and made recordings with it that sound as good as my buddy makes with his Neve/Apogee stuff; he knows what he's doing BTW.

The point is, when something costs more AND it's worth it (meaning it is actually BETTER), by all means buy it; when it's just about looks and design, you're an idiot if you spend more than you have to, unless you have money to burn. I can't begin to tell you how many musicians I know here in L.A. that run old macs because they can't afford to buy a new one. They are seriously limiting themselves by hanging on to their G4's............ Or, they buy a $3000 machine, and don't have money to buy mics/pres/etc.......

Rico

I wasn't expecting that response. My hats off to you. . And I agree on behringer. I have their digital mixer ( a steal at $600 new) and I love it.