Well it could be a good time to register Madtracker now, because it costs 50% of the original price if you register before januari 2005. Its a quite nice deal.
Ofcourse I think you should only register madtracker if you allready have Registered Renoise, otherwise save your money for Renoise…
What features does MadTracker have the renoise does not? I don’t plan to use MT at all. The only advantage seems to be Rewire, but i do not need that…
Registering MT2?
If I could, I would want to have my MT2 registration money back 
As I’ve never completed a song with it, and registered it years ago only because I didn’t want to see trackers die… 
I will get Mt3 for free… wow! My still-to-born nephews are already drooling for it 
Sorry Yannick for my politically incorrect reply to this thread, but I really did not apreciate how MT evolution has gone through the years (an usable interface probably could have been more useful than and IRC client, to name one)
Well, for start the two trackers are work a bit different.
The features Madtracker has that Renoise don’t are Rewire as you allready said, keep samples on disc and its easier to create multi sample instruments. Madtracker also have better support for xm/it.
Anyway I know both trackers very well and I prefere to work in Renoise. Because I currently tip towards the features Renoise have that madtracker has not, more than the features madtracker have that Renoise does not.
Its probably more a matter of taste…
Anyway madtracker is also a nice tracker.
Yannick:
first of all, sorry again for being too rude; as you probably have seen, this forum is fairly opened to any discussion and comparison between any software, and MT2 is probably the one who has the best apreciations among ReNoise users… just look at what most of them think about Skale
I actually did not change my mind over time: if ReNoise would have come out before the time I sent you that mails, I would have never harassed you with them: I don’t really want a FT2 clone, but since MT2 plays XM in a good way, and plans to be even better, I gladly offered my support for this purpose, as I also did with XmPlay. Ian Luck (XmPlay’s author) carefully followed my suggestions, and made what XmPlay is. Maybe I could be wrong, but you simply ignored most of my suggestions (I can send you that emails again if you really want ).
But I’m really not interested in 100% XM compatibility; I prefer go further and make new music. And this is true for the past too.
In the past, I also launched the idea of a common ReNoise-Skale-MT2 plugin API, but it looked like RNS people were the only enthusiasts about that idea.
I was not speaking as a ReNoise team member: I was speaking as a MT2 registered user, which I think I still am.
Should I have some special care for my MT2 user opinions because I am part of ReNoise team?
If so, pardon me for not putting that special care on the previous message.
About IRC client and usability: yes, of course it is a matter of tastes, that’s clear. We focus support mostly on forum, though we still provide flash-help on IRC. Forum, in our vision, is better because gives ability to search the present knowledge, and that’s why we also trust a lot in ReNoise Wiki page, on which Vvoois is putting lots of wise effort.
I hope you will find this post less sarcastic and with more points of constructive exchange.
Mad Tracker is a good tracker, no doubt about that… 
You know what i pitty about such ideas dying… it’s the answers to the “what if…” questions that would be the case…
What if there would be general tracker API…
A tracker API that exchanges pattern effect commands, volume commands, panning commands, envelope commands and whatever.
An API that supports 255 command-layers at which all those commands can be send (type and value) so that this API can work independantly as core medium between the tracker and the plugin that has been written for it…
what if?..
A lot of plugin writers could solve a lot of “I want this feature and i want that feature” questions.
The devs of tracker can solely concentrate upon the functionality of the tracker itself.
Even the RNI structure could then be handled with an external plugin (one that may even support other import formats) and everybody that can code and have the irritation of the current missing thing, can add it by himself, for himself and / or the community.
A basic API handler is fairly easy to make, i don’t think that all tracker specific commands should be added to the API, just let it only send and receive messages and values and let the plug-developers decide which tracker and how they would support it. (some plugs could be made general if all specific effect / volume commands could be put in a user-definable ini-file for the plug e.g.)
The functions to exchange timing related messages (for syncing etc.) and buffering may be a little harder, but will bring more effort into the usability of the API than any VST(I) ever will.
Are you sure the API idea has died? It sounds strange that the developers are sceptic to a (great) idea like that… maybe they were busy with other things that had higher priority, or at least I hope so. But It-Alien, you probably know more than me about the discussions…
Don’t know if it really died…
But could make it more vivid on a public scale…
http://www.renoise.com/board/index.php?act…fffaead904d26c4
@Yannick: Hey, i just wanted to say i appreciate what you are doing and have done so far. I used MT2 for some time also.
I am in love with renoise though.
hey vv!
merry xmas and thanks a bunch for your renoise wiki page. its awesome and will be of much help to both new and old renoise users.
YAY!
.x