Forum's Turned Ugly

James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:31 AM
The new colour scheme is horrible, and the "Forums" logo/gradient-bar thing up top is distgustingly compressed - ever heard of GIF? It all looks so newbie-webdesigner-wannabe. And all the links are that default puke-purple/blue combo - ecck, get rid of it, my burning eyes! At least it's remained Arial/Sans-Serif/whatever... god, I wouldn't definately called it quits if it had been Times New Roman...

If it works, don't fix it! Don't even try to improve it! Please!


CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:37 AM
when I saw the subject I thought you were referring to the people. I find it amazing how quickly people will turn around and insult you based on differences in opinion. It's very shortsighted considering there's a lot people could be learning from each other.

and if I hear someone talk about who's a professional and who's not one more time, I think I'm going to vomit.
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:45 AM
Well, I'm not really deeply and emotionally offended by the new look, especially not in a personal way, just a little taken back. You/we need to take things we see here with a big crunchy grain of sea salt. I don't wanna see vomit appearing on MY monitor, or imagine it spawning other there on y'alls.

It's just the blue/purple thing, why must it haunt me so?
CDM wrote on 4/19/2005, 11:49 AM
yeah, I'm with ya. It hurts my eyes.
Chienworks wrote on 4/19/2005, 12:33 PM
And just now it's turned to grey/grey.

Hmmmm. It would be nice to see the difference between visited/nonvisited links.

In case any of you had forgotten, blue/purple was the original standard colors for nonvisited and visited links. It's what your browser will display if it hasn't been told to show different colors.
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 1:10 PM
"blue/purple was the original standard"

Yeah and that's what gets me all upset, why was THAT the standard? heh :)

hmmmm.... I'm not getting gray/grey here! I'm going to investigate this.... I'll be bach!
James Young wrote on 4/19/2005, 1:21 PM
Well it seems now that alot of the links are script generated, whereas before they were hard coded (they are commented out right now) They probably couldn't figure out how to match the colours and said " Aww blast it, we'll just leave out those lines in the style sheet." I'm all in an uproar... okay, I'm not. I don't care really. Actually, their HTML is kinda mess, makes you wonder if that's how things done with other products ("hmm, lets see here, ahh, slap this patch here to stop that leaking, then, ahhh, okay, that's not sticking, let's try some duct tape, okay, ermm, that kinda worked, oh I gotta fix that hinge over there it's really gotten on people's nerves, lets see, umm, did you smell that!? okay, where was I,, ahh, oh yes! The hinge, I might smear some of my own bodily fluids on that thing, here goes.... (thump)... oh no! okay nevermind, but erm yeah that seems to work now, let's take a break")

only kidding of course!
MJhig wrote on 4/19/2005, 3:57 PM
only kidding of course!

Yep, true enough.

The truth is as I stated over a year ago (do a search). Sony is anything but hap hazard. They are as focused as any company. Companies are about making money, none of you need to be reminded of that. They know, to make money their focus is video (OK, call it multimedia if you like), video is king money-wise. The graffiti was on the wall post VV 3. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to compile the facts. A recent post summed it up in one sentence... paraphrasing, "Everyone has a camcorder".

All the whining in the world will have NO affect on Sony, again it's and always will be, about making money folks, simple as that. A handful of "audio users" are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

That was evident to me as soon as I began to pursue Vegas' video capabilities in version 3 since I wanted to know the whole program. The overwhelming participation in the video forum and a little common sense made it obvious to the path this software would take.

We "audio users" mean nothing, it's about making money. Who wouldn't gear their business towards millions as opposed to hundreds?

Rednroll wrote on 4/19/2005, 4:12 PM
Very True MJ,
The problem is that there's a lot of money to be made on the audio side also. This release is chasing after the professional video market, we could have been very well chasing after the professional audio market just the same. Everyone owns a car stereo also, more than then own a camcorder. Just as many people that own a camcorder probably own a PC with a sound card also that you can record with. There was a fork in the road in the multimedia utopia Sony is boasting about traveling and they took the one to the left, instead of the audio road to the right.
Ben  wrote on 4/19/2005, 4:17 PM
Well yeah, the craziest thing about all this is that, from EPM's posts, it seems like they do really think they are properly pursuing the audio route.

It's one of three things: either Sony believe their own lies and really think they are doing audio properly; they want us to believe their lies but take us for fools; or over in Madison there are many fine narcotics easily available.

MJhig wrote on 4/19/2005, 4:56 PM
Everyone owns a car stereo

own a PC with a sound card

These are the consumers of the end product, delivery in marketing Red. I know you know these are the folks that can't figure out which input of their SB card to plug their mic into to chat with MSN Messenger and crank their bass up on their EQs so their trunk lids rattle at red lights. They are the consumers, Sony is targeting videographers (including novices) that require software to edit their video, need to edit and author to DVD or above. Those with camcorders require a medium to deliver their work, those with CD players rarely are recording bands requiring software to edit and deliver the media.

They can easily go the DJ route with free or bundled Roxio/Nero, etc. software to make their mixed CDs. Only a hand-full of us are musicians/AEs and provide a less than limited market truth be told.

from EPM's posts

I believe you mean Peter (PHC). I have to hand it to Peter, I have nothing but respect for him (you Peter), he waded into the fire repeatedly attempting to be real and his underlying conviction to his audio cause is at a minimum commendable if not heroic. He certainly has to toe the mark of his paycheck sign"er". Again, it's about business for all of us.

Believe me when I say I'm no less disheartened at the course this awesome software has taken though far from unexpected. I started on Cakewalk, I hate the work-flow, was blown away when I discovered Vegas and must hold back hurling at the realization that Sonar will be in my future for some time to come.

Rednroll wrote on 4/19/2005, 5:11 PM
"Well yeah, the craziest thing about all this is that, from EPM's posts, it seems like they do really think they are properly pursuing the audio route."

SonyEPM's fan base is over in the Vegas Video forum now. He only stops over to visit us here when our noise starts to overflow into that arena. Then that's to throw you a piece of candy to quiet you down. What we want on the audio side is not in his best interest anymore. If we want something that will benefit the video side direction, then he's all ears and actively listening. If we want something that has no benefit to the video side of Vegas, or might disrupt anything in the video features then those ears are closed. Same thing if we request something that will take some significant development time. Come on, think about it. Name one thing as far as audio features in V6 that took a significant amount of time to develop?

VST support? Developed in Acid and Sound Forge already.
Media Manager? Acid again, and more of a video feature anyways.
Tape style scrub? Yeah too
BWF? It's only a one way street, but AAF is a two way street Why? Avid and FCP support AAF.
Nested Timelines? That one took some time, was it developed for the audio user? Hmmmmm....I asked for it in Acid, and it didn't make it there. It was a good thing the video users requested it huh? So at least now it has a chance to appear in Acid, since it won't have to be developed from the ground up.

You know what the audio user got in this release?......shafted!!!! SonyEPM gave you all the big middle finger. He'll be along shortly after shaking all the hands at NAB and getting his pats on the back from the video users, to throw you another piece of candy to settle you down.
ibliss wrote on 4/19/2005, 5:18 PM
Nested projects is one thing, but I don't get why they didn't implement the ACID folder tracks in V6.
MJhig wrote on 4/19/2005, 5:47 PM
Nested projects is one thing, but I don't get why they didn't implement the ACID folder tracks in V6.

Because nested projects is a video thing in reality. Think about it... if you were to build a video and you had segments of video on your HDD that would fit in an up coming project, say a fireworks shot with audio, it would be invaluable to be able to load that footage (veg) nested in the project.

Jeeze folks, smell the coffee, wake up time. I don't mean this derogatorily, I'm in the same boat you are. Facts are facts, business is business, numbers are numbers.

Fighting the good fight here, spread eagle on the common seems to me a lost cause. Markedly speaking , audio users are a minority. I've gone through this time and time again over my career. Drum machines, One man band keyboard players, Karaoke, DJ, it goes on and on. Real is Real. Marketing is marketing, we can use what we have (V.x) and make the best of it or go the way of the dinosaur.

Hey, American (Karaoke) Idol makes big bucks, gag.