I hope by the word "issue" you don't mean that those who have slow loads have an issue on their machines that shouldn't be there. That is that their machines should be more like those who say they are not experiencing a problem. I mean I realize that it is a subtle difference but I'm a bit touchy about this subject.
I build a project and it loads in 8c in 20 seconds. The exact same veg file takes 7 minutes in 9d. The exact same veg file takes 20 seconds in 9c. All, of course, are loaded on the same machine.
Here Vegas 9.0d works just great.
Do not see any long load times - +/- 1 to 5 seconds compared with 9.0c - and it even renders faster than 9.0c.
My raw media is even said to be difficult (AVCHD high profile 264 and up to 25 Mbit interlaced (1920+1440 mixed) AND with MP4 HD progressive AND with multi-megapixel JPG's - all just put directly (no proxies) onto the same timeline) - AND render to MPEG-2 m2t and AVCHD MP4... but Vegas just keeps working and working.
Just like good old 8.0c did - but faster.
So it is obviously quite wrong to claim that it is a general issue.
Pls. remember that "machine related" can include what codecs etc have been installed involuntarily and unknowingly... many - even soo innocent looking programs - just load a full monty of shi.... (pardon my french)
The problem has been reported, reproduced and acknowledged.
The only question that's therefore valid is when will it be fixed.
For what it's worth there's hardly ever been a single problem reported here that I haven't had raise its head at some point. There's so many variables at play that a serious coding error may only affect very few users.
This is why asking "how come the beta testers didn't find this?" is such an unfair question. The number of variations of what defines a Vegas project probably exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. The only way to fully test the code would be to run everyone of them. That would take longer than hell will take to freeze over. For that reason alone we should be welcoming people who find problems. Better if we work together to try to find the common factors. That can help the developers considerably.
I had no problem with 9d, opening veg files created from scratch in 9d. But when I opened an old veg file from previous version, it was real slow, even after saving and reopening the veg in 9d. I am working with DV, jpg stills and digital camera mpg video. WinXP-SP3. Note: the first old veg I opened gave an error due to a plug-in not being installed on the current system.
The 9d long open times for me have been related to missing media or plug-ins. Other veg files seem to open fine. It does appear that in general 9d opens veg files up a little slower than 9c but nothing drastic on my configuration.
Some of my .VEGs certainly take much longer to load - all were created in 8c and I don't have any missing media or plug-ins when loading into 9d. However, 9d seems to perform quite well once loaded - no quirks that I've noticed.
I still am editing mostly in 8c and only rendering in 9 - 9d-64 if I have nothing to deinterlace; otherwise, 9c-32 so that I can use smart deinterlacer (the only plug-in that I use that has no 64-bit version). Faster loading would be nice, but it's not a big problem for me at all.
At this point, my only problem is an occasional crash during rending a long, complex project in 9c-32; even then, I can reboot and restart and uncheck everything in the view menu and then it always seems to render all the way through.
9d, in contrast, seems rock-solid for rendering, even when all 4 cores are utilized. And, yes, my .VEGs always have many Cineform clips. My respect for Vegas is restored now that I no longer have to depend upon 8c for rendering.
Sorry Erik - but I did read what you wrote and pls. excuse me, and all the others, that have machines that do not show that slow loading behaviour:
When the copies of the Vegas 9.0d programmes are exactly-exactly-exactly the same on all the machines - then - again so sorry for my assertiveness - the problems must be machine/local software-related.
I followed the directions in the http://www.custcenter.com/cgi-bin/sonypictures.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4558Sony response[/link] in the link above, and now the veg that was taking 21 minutes to load only took exactly 57 seconds. I'm a bit wary, as there have been several proposed solutions for this slow-loading 9d problem that didn't work after initial success. So I shut my system down fully, restarted, and re-opened the same veg. It again opened in 57 seconds, with still no red frames like in 9c.
I'd be VERY interested to know if others have the same success by replacing the dll file as listed in the Sony response above. I know that Grazie will strongly recommend not replacing files, etc., until Sony recommends this solution for 9d, and you'll note that this is Sony's solution for way back at 9a. But geez... it seems to be working, at least initially for me. And if so, why didn't Sony just use this dll file when sending out 9d?
Then it's not the aviplug.dll but probably the "compoundplug.dll" in the same directory.
Here I have quite short load times, so I checked the property of that dll which is "Version 1.0 (build 741) 64 bit".
Which properties does your compoundplug.dll have??
@CClub: And if so, why didn't Sony just use this dll file when sending out 9d?
the proposed "working" aviplug.dll is version 188.8.131.5286 while the new version distributed with Vegas 9.0d and is version 184.108.40.20663... (maybe we can learn from that "if it is not broken then do not fix it" :- ))) )
... but a few clarifying words from ForumAdmin would be most welcome here... Sir?