Most of the fixes for problems found in beta 3 did not make it into
the release. We wish we could have, but with shipping commitments and
other production issues, we had no choice.

We are working on bugs and all suggestions for features and
enhancements are being considered.

I was actually in a Guitar Center today and they had Vegas on the
shelf.

Yes, the open beta has been a learning experiance for us. We went
through a shake down like we have not had before. It was very
valuable to us.

Thanks
Peter



Wilson Dyer wrote:
>>Yeah I DL'd it...appears to be the same as Beta 3, insofar as the
MTC
>>bug problem, that I'm concerned with still exists. Until this gets
>>worked out to at least the stability of Acid Pro (hopefully better
>>ie: real 29.97 DFTC and the sync latency issue addressed), I can't
>>use it except as a tester...which means keep seeing if they can get
>>it right. IMHO this experiment of using the general "Pro" public
to
>>test their app has probably proven overwhelming and confusing to
>>Sonic Foundry. I think it would be better to handle it privately
and
>>professionally. I know I personally would feel, and I've
experienced
>>this in other programs before, that actual progress was being made
>>and certainly better communication channels would be possible. As
an
>>end user I'd rather the product be good to go, as a tester I'd
rather
>>see a "no disclosure" agreement and real two way feedback than
this.
>>While it seemed like a good idea at first, I think it's potentially
>>dangerous. For instance, I was really raving about Beta 2 on
another
>>forum and even defending it, and then 3 came out and I've got egg
on
>>my face. And I've had to tell my colleagues in the sound editing
>>community of Hollywood to 'wait and see'...I hate that! Of course
>>maybe SF is benefitting from this program...I hope so, I don't wish
>>anything bad to happen to a great company.
>>
>>
>>bor wrote:
>>>>still no word in my inbox from SF about the official
>>>>retail release of Vegas... and i woulda thought by now i'd
>>>>be showered with spam if it was actually going to come out
>>>>this week. but i note that the download page now has build
>>>>134 "demo" up, and makes no allusion to altered
>>>>functionality or disabled saves. anyone tried this out yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Most of the fixes for problems found in beta 3 did not make it into
>>the release. We wish we could have, but with shipping commitments and
>>other production issues, we had no choice.
>>
>>We are working on bugs and all suggestions for features and
>>enhancements are being considered.
>>
>>I was actually in a Guitar Center today and they had Vegas on the
>>shelf.
>>
>>Yes, the open beta has been a learning experiance for us. We went
>>through a shake down like we have not had before. It was very
>>valuable to us.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Peter
>>
>

I'm sure the purchasers at Guitar center will sleep well knowing that even though their new purchase has
bugs in it you guys made your release deadline. I have to admit that I came up dissapointed in Vegas since
I've been unable to either get anything close to the performance level the early reviewers had or try and figure
why it seems to be much more efficent or non-efficent playing the exact same files in different attempts to do
so.
But I must admit my greatest eyebrow raiser is the old ironclad release deadline, or rather "ready or not here
it comes," and for a $550 street price I'd be a bit put out waiting for the "fixes" myself.

Bob

Bob

Robert, for what it's worth, Git Center has it in their new flyer for
$499...which means a "pro" discount around $450. You know SF will
make good on this program, and in my case I have found some
workarounds to the problems I've found. That being said I may still
wait until I know that Peter and company have a handle on a fix. I
think what SF is doing re. the deadline is at least an attempt to
fight the other curse of the Sound/MI biz, which is announce
advertise and then make 'em wait...and wait..and wait for the product
to hit the shelves...and still have bugs! I guess they're damned if
they do and damned if they don't.

Robert Gurske wrote:
>>
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>Most of the fixes for problems found in beta 3 did not make it
into
>>>>the release. We wish we could have, but with shipping commitments
and
>>>>other production issues, we had no choice.
>>>>
>>>>We are working on bugs and all suggestions for features and
>>>>enhancements are being considered.
>>>>
>>>>I was actually in a Guitar Center today and they had Vegas on the
>>>>shelf.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, the open beta has been a learning experiance for us. We went
>>>>through a shake down like we have not had before. It was very
>>>>valuable to us.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure the purchasers at Guitar center will sleep well
knowing that even though their new purchase has
>>bugs in it you guys made your release deadline. I have to admit
that I came up dissapointed in Vegas since
>>I've been unable to either get anything close to the performance
level the early reviewers had or try and figure
>>why it seems to be much more efficent or non-efficent playing the
exact same files in different attempts to do
>>so.
>> But I must admit my greatest eyebrow raiser is the old ironclad
release deadline, or rather "ready or not here
>>it comes," and for a $550 street price I'd be a bit put out waiting
for the "fixes" myself.
>>
>>
Bob
>>
>>

Bob
>>
>>

Wilson Dyer wrote:
>>Robert, for what it's worth, Git Center has it in their new flyer for
>>$499...which means a "pro" discount around $450. You know SF will
>>make good on this program, and in my case I have found some
>>workarounds to the problems I've found. That being said I may still
>>wait until I know that Peter and company have a handle on a fix. I
>>think what SF is doing re. the deadline is at least an attempt to
>>fight the other curse of the Sound/MI biz, which is announce
>>advertise and then make 'em wait...and wait..and wait for the product
>>to hit the shelves...and still have bugs! I guess they're damned if
>>they do and damned if they don't.
>>


I don't want to be unsympahetic, but to me it seems if you know there are problems you fix them
and then release. It's always irritated me that software gets a pass and that we have over the
years been conditioned to accept flaws. If you bought a new car with non functional AC or
maybe the hood latch didn't work or whatvever you'd never put up with it. But with software we are supposed to
buy (and I'm speaking of many products on many subjects) and then wait until they get around
to making it work. When I used to to some game beta testing it was always a case not of releasing when the
known bugs were eliminated but but rather how many can be eliminated before a pre-assigned release
deadline?
I know in my case, a single proprietor of a one man studio operation, $499 still is alot and it's not something
to have to wait another few weeks or months before it's up to snuff in terms of functionality. i guess they have
to do what they have to do but they've dropped a few notches with me.

Bob

Totally agree Robert - it seems to me that releasing a final product
without fixing bugs, making necessary enhancments etc, defeats the
point of us going through this whole Beta process in the first place.

In fact, you could go so far as to say Sonic Foundry's been taking us
all for a bit of a ride - using us for FREE beta testing; ironing out
bugs normally costs software companies a considerable amount of
money. So they went through all of this - in a rather inconsistent
unprofessional manner in terms of only answering the questions they
seem to want to on this board - and then released a bug-ridden piece
of software anyway!

As a user of SF for 3 years, I'm very disappointed with Vegas and
with the whole way SF have handled this - more like a small company
in its infancy than a company which has grown to be quite big.

I'll be waiting until they spend some time and money doing this
properly before I risk my audio production work on an unstable,
unreliable and feature lacking package. The sad thing is, Vegas had
great potential.

Ben

Robert Gurske wrote:
>>
>>
>>Wilson Dyer wrote:
>>>>Robert, for what it's worth, Git Center has it in their new flyer
for
>>>>$499...which means a "pro" discount around $450. You know SF
will
>>>>make good on this program, and in my case I have found some
>>>>workarounds to the problems I've found. That being said I may
still
>>>>wait until I know that Peter and company have a handle on a fix.
I
>>>>think what SF is doing re. the deadline is at least an attempt to
>>>>fight the other curse of the Sound/MI biz, which is announce
>>>>advertise and then make 'em wait...and wait..and wait for the
product
>>>>to hit the shelves...and still have bugs! I guess they're damned
if
>>>>they do and damned if they don't.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to be unsympahetic, but to me it seems if you know
there are problems you fix them
>>and then release. It's always irritated me that software gets a
pass and that we have over the
>>years been conditioned to accept flaws. If you bought a new car
with non functional AC or
>>maybe the hood latch didn't work or whatvever you'd never put up
with it. But with software we are supposed to
>>buy (and I'm speaking of many products on many subjects) and then
wait until they get around
>>to making it work. When I used to to some game beta testing it was
always a case not of releasing when the
>>known bugs were eliminated but but rather how many can be
eliminated before a pre-assigned release
>>deadline?
>> I know in my case, a single proprietor of a one man studio
operation, $499 still is alot and it's not something
>>to have to wait another few weeks or months before it's up to snuff
in terms of functionality. i guess they have
>>to do what they have to do but they've dropped a few notches with
me.
>>
>>

Bob
>>

ben wrote:
>>Totally agree Robert - it seems to me that releasing a final product
>>without fixing bugs, making necessary enhancments etc, defeats the
>>point of us going through this whole Beta process in the first place.
>>
>>In fact, you could go so far as to say Sonic Foundry's been taking us
>>all for a bit of a ride - using us for FREE beta testing; ironing out
>>bugs normally costs software companies a considerable amount of
>>money. So they went through all of this - in a rather inconsistent
>>unprofessional manner in terms of only answering the questions they
>>seem to want to on this board - and then released a bug-ridden piece
>>of software anyway!
>>
>>As a user of SF for 3 years, I'm very disappointed with Vegas and
>>with the whole way SF have handled this - more like a small company
>>in its infancy than a company which has grown to be quite big.
>>
>>I'll be waiting until they spend some time and money doing this
>>properly before I risk my audio production work on an unstable,
>>unreliable and feature lacking package. The sad thing is, Vegas had
>>great potential.
>>
>>Ben
>>
>>Robert Gurske wrote:
>>>>


Well, I was a bit disappointed in the features since competing software has more
(i.e. samplitude) and I haven't been able to get all these tracks others have
talked about (although that's been the case with other programs as well,
SawPro is the only one I've been able to record and playback 24 tracks with
no hitches.) I believe a SF spokesman told the reiewer the program wouldn't
have as many features but would be the most elegant. To me elegant and
bugs don't coexist all that well and as I said before I just think a software
producer has a moral obligation to purge known problems before release.
However I like the Vegas interface and it's the one I would have gone with
except for the aformentioned lack of capability to run enough tracks (at least with my machine)
and the bugs situation, which looks like their association with Microsoft is rubbing
off on them. I definately can't agree with the posts here that Vegas will run it's competition into the ground and that the other programs are archaic and doomed. It will be ineresting to see how it fares. I don't see much of a buzz on forums like rec.audio.pro but that goes for other competing systems as well. Bob

Well as a matter of fact the Jeep I bought a few years ago had about
6 months of bugs , fixes and problems. Does that excuse Chrysler?
No. Does it happen regularly in our modern world? Yes. Do we
consumers have a right to be disappointed? Yes. Can you send a
message to the maker? Yes, by your dollars or lack thereof.
Re: the Vegas price...In my biz the Tascam DA 88 is 'king of all
media' when it comes to the delivering editorial elements to a Mixing
stage. With the TC card option that they all must have and we're
talking 50 or so units, they run about $4-5k...I hate 'em, and
they're expensive and luckily I don't have to own one, I can rent 'em
or use those at the main facility. But they are the standard so I
have to accept that. The reason I mention this product is the cost
per track ratio is really high compared to software, ANY software is
a better deal, and I think we have to keep that in mind. I once
owned an AMPEX MM-1200 16 track machine that cost me about $28k, so I
for one am trying to exercise some patience with all these good
people. We will all look back on this era someday and recall the
'dark ages'...but we've already come a LONG way, in just the last
five years.

Robert Gurske wrote:
>>
>>
>>Wilson Dyer wrote:
>>>>Robert, for what it's worth, Git Center has it in their new flyer
for
>>>>$499...which means a "pro" discount around $450. You know SF
will
>>>>make good on this program, and in my case I have found some
>>>>workarounds to the problems I've found. That being said I may
still
>>>>wait until I know that Peter and company have a handle on a fix.
I
>>>>think what SF is doing re. the deadline is at least an attempt to
>>>>fight the other curse of the Sound/MI biz, which is announce
>>>>advertise and then make 'em wait...and wait..and wait for the
product
>>>>to hit the shelves...and still have bugs! I guess they're damned
if
>>>>they do and damned if they don't.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to be unsympahetic, but to me it seems if you know
there are problems you fix them
>>and then release. It's always irritated me that software gets a
pass and that we have over the
>>years been conditioned to accept flaws. If you bought a new car
with non functional AC or
>>maybe the hood latch didn't work or whatvever you'd never put up
with it. But with software we are supposed to
>>buy (and I'm speaking of many products on many subjects) and then
wait until they get around
>>to making it work. When I used to to some game beta testing it was
always a case not of releasing when the
>>known bugs were eliminated but but rather how many can be
eliminated before a pre-assigned release
>>deadline?
>> I know in my case, a single proprietor of a one man studio
operation, $499 still is alot and it's not something
>>to have to wait another few weeks or months before it's up to snuff
in terms of functionality. i guess they have
>>to do what they have to do but they've dropped a few notches with
me.
>>
>>

Bob
>>