Probably just me, but I keep getting him confused with GippY Zaloo, the former highwayman, entrepreneur and spinster.

Gippy, of course, started his Subjects in CAPITALS THEN DROPPED TO LOWER CASE FOR THE LAST word.

When last arrested he was found to have on his person various plug-ins and transitions.

I'm a full-time user of Vegas and a (sometimes) user of FCP. (I'm not an expert user of FCP, so some of my gripes could be something I just haven't found/learned yet.) IMHO, the FCP interface just gets in the way and makes you do a lot of extra work to do things that are simple in Vegas BECAUSE of its interface.

- Want to sync two audio tracks by looping, and nudging one while still playing? FCP can't, Vegas can.

- Want to see your timeline scroll so you can the cursor as it's playing back? FCP can't, Vegas can.

- Want to switch to an A/B roll view when you have a lot of stuff on your track? FCP can't, Vegas can.

- Want to apply an FX to an event, a whole track, every occurrence of the media in the project, or the whole project? FCP can't (easily), Vegas can.

- Want to apply a transition between two events? Try to figure out in FCP exactly what happens to your event edges when you drop a transition on them.

- Want to drop just about any media type in the timeline and use it without going through some conversion process first? FCP can't, Vegas can.

The more I use Vegas, the more I am convinced that it was designed to GET OUT OF YOUR WAY and just let you do the job of editing.

Okay, don't flame me if I'm repeating something someone already said because I am not about to go read through every single reply that praises Vegas just because Zippy said something without the slightest bit of tact (odd how he talks about SoFo not knowing anything about marketting).

Anyway, put simply, I would have to agree with Zippy here. Vegas does look like a regular windows program-- i.e. something that any home-video 'enthusiast' might have. This is in stark contrast to all the rest of the 'Pro' NLEs that have 'brushed-metal' interfaces and the like. Just look at Premier, never even coming close to being considered a pro-level NLE, and they add some features from Vegas, change up the interface (it looks much more tactile and shaded now), and slap on the 'Pro' moniker (ala FCP), and now everybody is calling it an awsome new 'pro' NLE!

If Premier can get that kind of 'street-cred' (however unfounded) when it definitely still doesn't match Vegas (except for the multiple nestable timelines feature), and yet Vegas is hardly even mentioned when comparing similar NLEs (FCP, AVX DV, Premier Pro), I think something definite should be done for the sake of the product we so hotly support whenever Zippy posts another tact-less and childlishly complaining post.

I know I wrote a lot, so here's a quick list to sum it up:
1)Premier 6.5 (joke of NLEs)
2)Final Cut Pro w/'nice' GUI, and 'Pro' moniker (oddly enough, considered pro-level)
3)Premier Pro: adds 'Pro' moniker and some standard Vegas features (plus multiple nesteable timelines) - Now considered Pro.
4)Though it is unfounded, the psychological aspects of appearance and title are important (to those who currently use it, their clients, and future users).
5)Speaks well of Vegas, that even without all the glam stuff, it still is a great editor on pure editing power alone.

Don't agree? Let's hear why.

In general, once an application has reached a level of overall smooth usefulness (such as Vegas has), fancy appearance is pretty much inversely proportional to functionality. I've seen many programs add new looks and skins. In every case, the users end up spending more time simply trying to figure out which buttons do what, or even just finding the buttons. It may look cool for a short while, but in the long run the plain old Windows interface is extremely efficient, intuitive, functional, and easy to grasp. A slick, fancy appearance generally obfuscates functionality.

My output may be a work of art (then again, it may not be). My computer isn't. It is first and foremost a tool. As a tool, functionality should be the primary concern.

I have to agree with Kelly and wonder why so many can't see that the "fancy interfaces" are simply a cover for the dog that's hiding underneath. There is always a performance penalty for supporting those fancy [non-standard to the OS] interfaces -- I'd rather all my PC's power be dedicated to the work Vegas is doing rather than trying to make it look different from my other Windows programs.

"Form follows function." architect Louis Sullivan

We have the fucntions (which everyone here has no problem stating)! NOW LETS WORK ON THE FORM!!! GET WITH IT ALREADY!!!

Zippy,

SHUT UP already! You want a pretty interface, just buy something else. Like Pinnacle's Edition, it has a spiffy interface and is as confusing as it can possibly be. I like Vegas just the way it is.

John

Picture a split-screen, 3 locations simultaneously: In NYC and LA, Sony executives take a break and browse around, reading the SoFo forum. In Tokyo, a board member does the same. All are chuckling with glee. They swap emails saying, "How about this guy Zippy? Don't change anything in Vegas--too much fun!"

If you need eye candy, just create a new desktop theme or Properties > Appearance. You can change the colors of the Active/Inactive Title bars, the 3 D Objects, the buttons, the fonts etc., etc. Wooooow man! ooooooooh.

Leave Vegas alone, I like it fine the way it is. Many of those other apps. may have the frosting but anything that doesn't have right-click ability and forces you to use the menus for most everything or has functions that can only be accessed by keystrokes are next to worthless IMO.

MJ