Dear friend,
I thank you very very much!
Your solution works finally. It was easy. I think the Network Rendering Service need to some upgrade and your solution should be explained on the Help.
I have Xp Pro on both PC, what about the "wrinkle you could share"?
Thank you again.

Out of curiosity - how much time is saved for what type of file and what length using network rendering vs a single PC - can you share your results please along with details on the project? I've been considering setting up a second computer to do this - but haven't yet, and would like to know what benefits you are seeing - some of my renders take an hour or more so thinking it might speed things up.

"I have Xp Pro on both PC, what about the "wrinkle you could share"?'

With XP on both machines, I believe you are OK. The problem is when a Vista machine logs on to an XP machine that has the default "simple file sharing" enabled, it does so as Guest, who obviously has no Write privileges on the remote machine (outside the public folders). In this case, I had to turn simple file sharing off which restored Classic file sharing on the XP machine. At that point network render in Vegas started working (after logging on, of course).

http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/ShowMeHow/304040.asx

Skywalker,
Glad to be of help. Nice that you got it working.

srode,
Whether network rendering saves you much time depends on so many things -- network speed, traffic, and most important the cpu speed and thtoughput of the shared hard drive. In my case it became easier just to plug in the firewire drive and render using just one computer. If you have a fast drive on an uncluttered network you may find that shared rendering will give you some advantage, but I can promise you it won't cut it in half.

I have 4 Gigabit Lans on the sending computer (1 used and 3 open)- would have 2 on the recieving computer - feeding from a RAID10 Array (200mbps) to a computer with a RAID 10 array (180mbps). Sending computer is a Quad 6700 running 3.33ghz with 8gb of ram XP64 would be sending to a duocore running 2.66 Ghz and XP32 Media edition. The 2 gigabit Lans would be teamed. What do you think the savings in time would be on a hour render - rough estimate of course. If it's not much savings I won't mess with setting it up, just thinking as I have enough spare parts to throw something together for the price of a case and a power supply - under $300 easy.

I have no idea -- I have never run anything with that kind of horsepower, networked or otherwise.

My savings on distributed rendering using dual core processors is modest -- 10% to 20%. Nowadays, I use networked rendering when I want my CPU free as when working on a second project. I merely assign the rendering to a second computer, knowing it won't be faster, just that I can work unhindered from a slammed processor.

Dear friends,
after a lot of test I think the Network Rendering is useful ONLY if you have computers of identical power: then 2 computer make half rendering time and so on. Otherwise the complessive rendering time is more of the time it takes with a single computer. The less powerful computer is the bottleneck of the system and the most powerful computer waste time to wait the less powerful computer rendering completion. Besides you waste time to wait stitching rendered segments on the host computer. You can configure the default lenght segment but unnecessarily because if you have different computers you waste ever time, while you saving much time if you have identical computers.
I have a QuadCore and a DualCore and I decided to not use Network Rendering until I will have 2 QuadCore PCs.
Thank you very much!