Well, I feel I should comment on a couple points (everybody else has!). First let me qualify one important thing; I use only the MIDI functionality, I use PARIS for recording audio. I have just gone from Cubase 3.65 to LAWP 3.5 - so far LAWP is as solid as a rock and what it does it does much better than Cubase. Specifically the menu system is much better *for me* and environments work 10x better than Cubase's constantly crashing and unstable system drivers, even though system drivers do have more capability (which I can never use because they crash half the time). > It's clear that Emagic supports the Mac more than they do PC, which is ok as > long as LAW gets the Mac features eventually Cubase is FAR worse at supporting the Mac more than the PC - the Mac functionality even for just MIDI alone is much better than for PC. For example, the PC MIDI resolution is worse than Cakewalk or Logic on the PC but just fine on the Mac. > >6 * Cubase will support multi processors very soon. Nuendo already does. From a design perspective, if I were a software sequencer (even with audio) provider, I'd not worry about supporting multi processors as the hardware is rapidly increasing and very soon the OSes will do that for the software IMHO. Besides, even if they don't, the single processors will get very powerful for host-based processing (which I hate anyway, which is one reason why I use PARIS, that avoids the whole scenario). Anyway, just my own comments. Actually my personal wish is just that the major sequencer manufacturers would make MIDI-only versions of their software and sell those a lot cheaper. The few parties that do make MIDI-only versions lack many of the features of the larger manufacturers and are all worse at sync (at least on the PC side, Vision being only Mac I never tried their last MIDI-only version and that's a moot point anyway these days).