What's your budget?
What do you already have?
Can you be more specific about the types of bands you want to record?

I know more questions isn't what you want. But really, you have a fair range there.

DAW Software is really personal choice. It depends on your work flow: The type of edits you make, and the tools you like to use. All of the hardware you have mentioned will work, although the Digidesign system is on a different level than the others.

Personally, of all the software I have used Samplitude was my favorite, but I don't use it anymore. As I become more familiar with Pro Tools it is getting close to that favorite spot.

Most of my work is at the client's site like you are planning on doing. Cubase is a powerful DAW, and I have used it before, but I chose the Pro Tools M-Powered route. It really is a very powerful solution. Version 8 is coming out soon with better MIDI and comping functions. If you can, you might want to wait for that. Or if you are on a tight budget get 7.4 as it will be cheep when 8.0 comes out.

You might think that you don't need MIDI, but it is a cost effective way to add more instruments to the mix. You will be surprised what some bowed string samples will add to a legato chorus.

i'm doing mostly like rock and indie bands and i'm in a post hardcore band (q and not u, les savy fav, papier tigre etc) and i'm a starving college student so cash is an issue. i want to be able to do 16 tracks because i like doing the whole band live and going back and adding more guitars and vocals later. i'd prefer to stay in PT since all the formal audio training i've done had been in pro tools and i'm really comfortable with it. right now all i have is my lap top, my hard drive, some monitors, 4 sm57s, a beta 58, 2 sm58s, a pg52, e609, 2 akg perception 200s, a hughes and kettner redbox, an ampeg svt810en, carvin rl600, marshall jcm2000 dsl50, mesa recto 2x12, a crappy drumset, a few strats, a jazzmaster, mexican jazz bass, hamer studio custom and a bunch of stands and cables. i'd like to do (close to) album quality for my bands and make demos and eps for some friend's bands and also do some ADR and dubbing in final cut for school projects. i want to do recording as a profession and i'm going to school for film sound at the moment.

If your budget is tight, and you want to record (and not do live sound) then go with option A without the mixer. When you want to expand to 16 channels get an 8 channel pre-amp with a light pipe output to add the extra channels. That will keep you in the Pro Tools world.

eg:
PreSonus DigiMax D8 8-Channel Preamplifier
Focusrite Platinum OctoPre 8-Channel Mic Preamp

yah, why would you buy an analog mixer if you arent doing live work?

you want independent tracks, and if you use a live mixer then you'll have to sum things once you put it into an interface.. even an 8ch interface.

get an 003+ (or profire2626 w/ PT M-power) and also a Presonus Digimax. that's 16 inputs and cheaper than other routes.

i think i'm going to with the m-powered profire 2626 and the digimax d8, a 6 channel headphone amp and a furman in a 4 space rack with two 8 xlr patch bays on the back of the rack so i don't have to reach all the way in to the rack every time i want to plug or unplug something. the only thing i don't get is how i'm supposed to monitor with the 2626. on the phonic interface i've been using there's left and right monitor outs (xlrs) right on the back plus one for a sub. there's no monitor out on the profire, so am i supposed to monitor through the computer? all i have on my lap top is the crappy headphone out and the none-too-great built in speakers, not exactly adequate for monitoring

Most M-Audio hardware uses any of the hardware outs for monitoring. (so hardware out 1/2 could be your monitor out) The mixer on your computer will have controls for this monitor mix.

To make it easy to use you can set all the levels on the monitor mix to unity gain, and adjust the mix with the gain knobs. You can then forget about the mixer on the computer. This scarifies proper recording gain for ease of use.

The other (better recording, more complicated use) way would be to adjust the gain properly, and adjust the level in the monitor mix.

If you want to record live bands with pa
I strongly suggest getting mic-splitters
so you're less likely to get ground loops and you're not dependent on the direct outs of the mixer and its operator (term used very loosely)

Cheap?
the daw interface is cheap, but 16 decent mics + cables (x2 for splitter) + splitters + stands is much more expensive
not to mention backbreaking

and do you really want a pc on location?
or maybe a hd recorder (f.e. HD24) and use a decent 2 channel interface at home

have fun
cheers

Wait, by "on location" are we talking about during a gig, or at the band's rehearsal space? If it you are running the live sound as well as recording, I would use a mixer and the direct out / insert to the audio interface. However doing both is a big job. If someone else is running sound, then I would do what GG suggested. If it is at a rehearsal space, then headphones and no mixer.

You have a laptop not a PC right?

GG,
Right on with the cost of microphones, cables and stands. It is too often not considered until the last moment.

well i have access to mics, and yeah i don't want to do live stuff at shows per se, i meant more that the band would play all together and i'd record them instead of doing it track by track. i get better takes that way as long as i can isolate things well. there's still a lot of bleed but a lot of bands i've recorded don't do well with metronomes and it's easier to just do it all live.

i'm just trying to get to the next level, make my music sound better and have a practical, portable set up that i can pack in my car and meet bands wherever they prefer to jam