How exactly is it damaging to point out how the interface looks?
These are not just my comments, they were made by MANY users when the interface was changed, most of whom have since left.
How is it damaging to point out and echo the comments of my paying clients, the ones who work in the industry?
How is it damaging to want to improve the perception of the product in the marketplace?
Do you understand constructive criticism?
Do you think I'm being destructive or constructive when I point these things out?
This business rightly or wrongly is largely about perception. Getting the developers to take steps to improve the perception of the product is a constructive effort. Pretending all is well is destructive because it will not bring about change. Sometimes you've got to kick on doors to get people to listen. I could just quietly slink away like many others but that's not my style and nor is denial or blind faith. I do work in this industry, it floats on BS but you and I and the rest of us here will never change that, not in this lifetime. The only way to keep your head above the mirk is to accept it and go with the flow, that I've learned the hard way. I bite my tongue a lot when I'm elsewhere.
And now I have to go update the drivers in a camera, you think getting Vegas to run is tricky, ha.

Bob.

"How exactly is it damaging to point out how the interface looks?"

Gimme a break Bob. You compared Vegas to a kid's toy company and you can't figure out how that's damaging??? This isn't constructive criticism. It's outright Vegas bashing.

Constructive criticism is something like... "I think the interface could be darker because...."

You're being nothing but hypocritical here and you know it. You have 17 excuses here why you're totally justified comparing Vegas to a toy company... but then when I mention a lesser program paired up with Vegas in my work flow you tell me I'm doing damage. THIS is exactly why I don't get you Bob.

I've been trying to tell both you an Terje for some time now Bob, that the sky ISN'T falling with Vegas. It finally sounds like your both starting to come around

You are funny. Now you take credit for turning around people who have never turned neither this nor that way. Priceless.

In a perfect world such as the bubble you live in there is no such thing as software conflicts

In Windows there isn't. Really. I promise you there isn't. There are driver conflicts, but not "software" as such conflicts. Honestly. The Windows NT codebase that handles this is 15 years old. It has probably only seen minor modifications over the years since it is pretty core stuff and not that different from bog-standard text-book hardware-backed memory management. If there were any real problems with Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista memory protection then Windows would not be a viable server platform and nobody would be using it commercially as a database or web platform. That is obviously not the case. Honestly blink, if this particular part of Windows had even relatively minor glitches it would make Windows Server editions utterly useless.

do a google on "incd conflicts" or "itune conflicts"

Again, these are shared resource conflicts, as I mentioned, those are not uncommon. That doesn't mean that itunes or incd can write to the memory of other applications like you suggested. They can't.

you were also complaining about large jpg's crashing your machine

Try again.

Together we'll work on your machine

Given your lack of technical prowess, I wouldn't let you near my machine since it never crashes.

"I wouldn't let you near my machine since it never crashes."

So then what's the argument? Why are you and Bob running around stating that Vegas is in great peril with massive memory problems and leaks and other such nonsense If your machine is perfect and never crashes, as mine is, and a Bob's is. I guess Vegas doesn't have these massive memory leak problems as you have been claiming. That's the only answer I can come to anyway.

If relatively few people are having such problems (which is the case) then it would have to be unique to their machine. Now unless Vegas is CHOOSING ITS PREY then it would more than likely be a hardware/ software conflict ... As it ACTUALLY was in this thread for example:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=615554.
Of course maybe you think Widetrack is lying as his machine is still broken and crashing??

My memory BTW is pretty much solid as a rock. Of course it will vary just a bit.... a couple hundred meg from project start to finish, but then what most people don't consider is that the task manager numbers are TOTALS and that means ALL the programs/services are being seen in those graphs and such.

You see my dilemma here don't you Terje? Most people open the task manager performance chart and base their Vegas movements from that.... and it's totally baseless because that chart is not Vegas, but rather the ENTIRE computer. Unless you know exatly what programs are running, and what program is using what percentage of cpu and memory every second, then Vegas alone is NOT being measured..... but then people run around with the idea that we have memory leaks in spite of that and the sky is falling.

Most people having problems sit there and feverishly watch those numbers and the graph, and then come to the boards and claim that just before the crash they saw the cpu usage spike or the memory increase..... or.... I on the other hand have always discounted that info because there is no telling why it spiked or even what spiked it. Was it actually vegas that they saw, or could it have been their AV system kicking in and starting to scan for viruses (or something similar)?

"So then what's the argument? If your machine is perfect and never crashes, as mine is, and a Bob's is then I guess Vegas doesn't have these massive memory leak problems as you have been claiming."

No Blink, again you're taking what I've been saying out of context. I made the "I'm not crashing" statement in reply to your personal attack calling me "sad" and "pathetic". I can make it crash, at will. Take note, I'll say it again, I can make it crash.

Now here is the problem, other users are having the same problems. I can watch it go wrong using their scenario, I can watch memory usage grow. It isn't any other process gobbling up memory. I know this because I know what is going on. Other users have pinpointed some of the exact same causes. How do I know this, logic and reason. When Vegas hits the problem footage it looses the plot, it goes from rendering frames per seconds to minutes per frame. How would any other process know about what's in the footage? Do you think ASIO drivers would, do you think InCD would.
How is it some users don't have problems and others do. That's dead easy to explain. Some like me are lucky, they shoot XDCAM. Not one XDCAM shooter is having problems that I've seen, apart from a few easily fixed bugs. Others are using CF DIs, no problems for them either. Some like me when they do shoot HDV use kit in good nick with good tape and only capture with expensive VCRs. That reduces mpeg-2 errors, it hides the problem. Also factor in project complexity, some are running literaly 100s of tracks and using 32bit processing and for good reason too. It crashes and they can't render out their high budget movies (>$500K). I'll say it again, no one can get these projects to render. Just in case you don't get that, that's on any computer, even one with ECC RAM that cost over $10K, built and tested by one of the top global suppliers.

You say I'm bashing Vegas complaing about the look of the GUI. This complaint goes back years. I'm not bashing the product I said "looks like". Other comments invoked "Hello Kitty". They're not my words, I ain't that creative. How is it bashing to echo our clients and other users words?

And yet just recently we have one of the most respected members of this forum point out that Vegas's scopes "are not reliable". Good grief Blink, compared to my jibes about the look of the GUI that's totally and utterly damning. And the problem has been there for over 12 months now and still not fixed. Again most who complained and bitched and bashed have left. How many more of the whinger who want the product improved have to leave to make you happy?
Or would you prefer no one complains, would that make you happy, I've seen that scenario play out many times and I know how it ends.

It started to play out in front of me a few weeks ago at a regular meeting. The product development manager says "why should we fix this problem, only one user is complaining about it". That's despite me telling him that it was "only one user so far" and "it's one of our most high profile users". Thankfully enough of the others at the meeting gave him an earful and the problem got fixed.

Oh and now that I think of it, no one said "massive" memory leaks. These things are subtle, "hard to find". I've watched a development team much bigger than SCS spend a long time trying to track down these problems. In the end, back then, it wasn't directly their fault, it was in the C+ compiler we were using, it was sometimes writing slightly dodgy code. Thankfully those kinds of problems are pretty rare today.

Bob.

". Take note, I'll say it again, I can make it crash."

Yes well... I KNOW that I can make PP crash, as with Avid Liquid, Ulead, Avid MC... (not sure about FCP... never actually used it, but I would assume so)...... so what's your point??? All these programs have massive memory problems too??

"I can watch memory usage grow. It isn't any other process gobbling up memory. I know this because I know what is going on. Other users have pinpointed some of the exact same causes. How do I know this, logic and reason. When Vegas hits the problem footage it looses the plot,"

And you know Vegas has lost the plot because? You're making some HUGE assumptions here, and you're certainly entitled to them. But at the end of the day they're nothing more than PURE GUESSES. And Bob... not to call you a liar... but I highly doubt you know exactly what is going on inside your machine every second that it's rendering. I don't think ANY Engineer would go out on a limb and make the kind of statement you just did. Bottom line... you can't use the performance graphs to read Vegas because those numbers are computer TOTALS.... NOT Vegas. I've haven't even got Vegas loaded right now... just Firefox., services..etc... and my Memory is sitting at 1.52 gigs used and my cpu usage is going from 2% right on up to 100%

If you're using the performance graghs purely to measure vegas , then you're doing nothing bu blowing in the wind because it's not just vegas you're looking at.... it's that simple

"You say I'm bashing Vegas complaing about the look of the GUI. This complaint goes back years."
Hey I have no problems with regards to complaining about Vegas... just try and do it in a way that's not damaging..... and don't be a hypocrite about it. Comparing Vegas to a toy company isn't the wisest thing to do if you're so concerned about Vegas's reputation.

"And yet just recently we have one of the most respected members of this forum point out that Vegas's scopes "are not reliable".
Vegas.... as with any other program of this nature is certainly not perfect. I myself have found a few bugs. But all in all Bob, I have found vegas to be steady, dependable, and reliable

". These things are subtle, "hard to find"."
Okay.... new we're talking. Firstly I agree. Vegas DOES have issues, but they are by no means big showstoppers. But I have to point out that if they are subtle and hard to find, then how can you possibly rely on something like the performance monitor to decide what's happening to Vegas? These monitors are describing the ENTIRE computer. Finding a needle in the haystack will not be accomplished by standing back and looking at the entire barn as a who;e... but rather with a much more detailed approach... like on your hands and knees.

And Bob... if you read through the posts, you will find that I didn't start the attacking with you, but the other way around. You rather aggressively accused me of not reading..... when in fact I did.

"And you know Vegas has lost the plot because? You're making some HUGE assumptions here, and you're certainly entitled to them. But at the end of the day they're nothing more than PURE GUESSES."

How are they huge assumptions Blink?

I'll say it again as you clearly didn't get it before. Vegas tells us what it's doing, it does display the number of the frame it is working on. I can tell the time. I do have a population of millions of samples. I know that within a specific sample of that population a tiny group will repeatedly cause the exact same behaviour. Instead of taking milliseconds to decode a frame it starts taking minutes. I can repeat the experiment and get the exact same results at the exact same set of frames. I know there is something different about those frames, I was there when they were corrupted. Everything correlates. It'd be a HUGE assumption to reach any other conclusion, there is zero deviation. While all of that is happening memory usage slowly climbs, the disk light is hard on, the same piece of media is constantly being read. At no other point in the population of millions of frames does the same behaviour occur. How many calculations do you think it would normally take to decode a mpeg-2 frame? Why would certain specific ones take 10,000s times more calculations? Why in order to attempt to fix the problem do you think SCS released a different Main Concept dll?

You are right in one respect. My controlled experiment doesn't actually prove anything, no more than we can prove gravity. The question though is how much more proof do you need before you accept that standing under a falling object will have bad consequences.

Bob.

"You are right in one respect. My controlled experiment doesn't actually prove anything, no more than we can prove gravity. "

You would be correct on that one. You're drawing a conclusion out of a whole pile of assumptions... no more or less than what I am doing. Yet I'm told that I'M jumping to conclusions... even when my conclusions pay off in the above mentioned thread with Widetrack's machine. His access violations turned out to be software conflicts of one kind or another. Now one can argue the REASONS for that conflict... is it Vegas's fault or the conflicting program, but then what's the point. Widetrack now has a machine he can render with and THAT in the end is what we're all looking for.

You're looking at a graph that depicts the operations of an entire computer and trying to use it to home in on ONE program. Even if by the OFF chance that you know your machine's operational characteristics well enough to to take a GUESS.... you don't know the machines of others and you don't know what they're operating at the time so it's IMPOSSIBLE to claim "memory leaks" on their machines. Moreover, there are some crashes like yours (and I have seen it before as well) where Vegas gives some kind of warning signs.... which may or may not validate things a little more. But there are also crashes where Vegas just shuts down for no reason at all.

Personally speaking Bob I can only speak for myself. I had a machine that was crashing every 5 minutes.... I kid you not. NOW it works flawlessly. It EVEN works with the old DLL. And it ALL turned out to be conflicts of one kind or another with other hardware/software. My crashes had NOTHING to do with any of this Memory leak business... I honestly have never seen that on this machine.... even when it was crashing.

Why are you and Bob running around stating that Vegas is in great peril with massive memory problems and leaks and other such nonsense

It is not easy to communicate with someone who just makes up stuff that I and others have supposedly said on the spot. Please try to stick to reality if you please. I have, for example, not stated that Vegas has problems with memory leaks. I have, on the other hand, stated that Vegas quite clearly have had some memory management problems. The JPG issue was an example of this. It also seems the 32 bit color issue is another (given the 64 bit cure).

Nobody has claimed that Vegas has massive problems of any kind, but there are legitimate issues with Vegas that needs to be addressed. Running around like an insane fan-boy slamming anyone who says there are problems is rather counter productive.

My main problem with SCS is that long-standing problems are not fixed or even prioritized it seems. The JPG issue was around for years. The 32 bit color problem has been around since the release of 8. That is indicative of problems in the SCS organization.

If relatively few people are having such problems

The JPG issue was affecting all Vegas users and went un-fixed for years. The 32 bit color issue is affecting all Vegas users.

Most people open the task manager performance chart and base their Vegas movements from that.... and it's totally baseless because that chart is not Vegas, but rather the ENTIRE computer.

Wow. Big secret. If someone does they are an idiot. Particularly since you can easily monitor the memory usage of Vegas only from the same application. But then again, I have never complained that Vegas leaks memory either so your rather silly rant is irrelevant nonsense. As is most of what you write when you try to be technical.

Most people having problems sit there and feverishly watch those numbers and the graph

I would love to see you produce a single ounce of evidence for such a statement.

If you're using the performance graghs purely to measure vegas

You really shouldn't assume that everybody is as ignorant as you are blink. If you don't know how to measure, exactly, the amount of memory allocated to a particular application, you really should never ever again post any comment on anything of a vaguely technical nature.

Hey, here is a thought. Perhaps Bob is looking at the memory Vegas is using, and only that, and he is watching it while Vegas is rendering. As Vegas hits the problem footage, Bob can see Vegas starting to seriously increase the allocated memory. After a while he shuts down Vegas. He then does it again. At the same spot he can again see memory usage shoot up. He then tries the project on another PC. Same story.

At that point blink, Bob knows this is a Vegas issue. He knows because he is as technically proficient as you are ignorant and arrogant.

You're looking at a graph that depicts the operations of an entire computer

Just because you are an ignorant fool blink, don't assume that everybody else is. Now I am going to make an assumption. I assume that Bob is able to open the Windows task manager. I also assume that he is able to find the "View -> Select colums..." option in the menu. Finally I assume that Bob is able to click on the following options:
Memory - Working Set (selected by default)
Memory - Peak Working Set
Memory - Working Set Delta

If he does he can, for each application currently running, monitor how much memory it is using at any point in time, the max amount of memory it has used and the amount and direction with which the memory usage is changing.

As I was saying, just because you are ignorant and technically less competent than an average chimp, please don't assume that everybody else suffer as you do.

"I assume that Bob is able to open the Windows task manager. I also assume that he is able to find the "View -> Select colums..." option in the menu. Finally I assume that Bob is able to click on the following options:

And you'll find that in PROCESSES not the performance graphs, and you can also BTW highlight each process and follow it for easy tracking..... but then Bob didn't mention any of this so why would you assume he knows? Jumping to conclusions...... again.
Here.... let me your words back at you..."just because you are ignorant and technically less competent than an average chimp, please don't assume that everybody else suffer as you do."

The jpg issue has been fixed and you didn't even know about it. It kind of shows you how in-tune you are with the program. Here... let me use your words..."just because you are ignorant and technically less competent than an average chimp, please don't assume that everybody else suffer as you do."

Here's YOUR words from way above:
In other words, if your application (I will cover device drivers below) is crashing and behaving badly, it is never because another application is interfering with it. So, your advice about shutting down applications (services are regular applications), interesting as it is, will only free up more real memory on your PC and that will make it swap less. Unless the error is in the Windows swapping algorithm, this will have no effect on your application crashing.
which turned out to be dead stinking wrong with Widetrack's machine. It was a conflict with another software..... which was the entire intention of disconnecting and turning everything off that wasn't necessary.... to isolate the problem. Of course if you knew anything about problem solving you wouldn't have questioned this..... it's called simplifying the equation. It's done in mathematics everyday. Programs conflicting with one another are a fact of life. If you google "itune conflicts" you will get 2,070,000 hits. Now if even 1/2 of those are in the ballpark of this discussion... and my guess is that it would be MORE than 1/2. It seems to me Terje, that the only advice (if you can call it that) that has been given here that can be classified as "useless" is yours. Here... let me use your words: "just because you are ignorant and technically less competent than an average chimp, please don't assume that everybody else suffer as you do."

EDIT: Now I'm done wasting my time with this. As far as I'm concerned the only one jumping to conclusions here is you, and your words won't change my opinion. My advice helped a person to solve a crashing issue. Your words on the other hand have done...... what exactly??? So you go right ahead with the insults Terje if you so feel the need.... because I won't respond further

blink,

I've pretty much been ignoring this thread, since it wandered so way OT. But I think you are wrong on your "software conflict" concept. The main reason to close extraneous programs and services is to conserve the use of the CPU , RAM and swap file. That's prolly 99+% of it. The other 1% (if that) comes from ill-behaved software that causes conflicts over hardware and RAM with another program or service. These days and especially with Vista x64, that's almost impossible and is usually the fault of the OS itself.

That said, renegade software tends to do stuff like replace shared DLLs without asking permission to do so. Ill-mannered freeware codecs are a common example of this type of meddling. Nero is a good (bad?) example of a piece of software that installs a ton of DirectShow filters with merits that override those used by other programs. But that's got nothing to do with what's running at any given time on the computer.

"I've pretty much been ignoring this thread, since it wandered so way OT."

I'm very sorry jab... it was and is not my intention of making you or anyone else feel alienated. It was also not my intention of seeing this thread so far off base.

I am really not interested in taking this any further. Contrary to popular belief I don't like getting into these name-calling, insulting kind of arguments.... it does nothing but make people look bad. I will say though that if you go back into the threads you will see quite a few crashing problems that have been cleared by simply uninstalling or turning off various softwares like updating programs and such. Does that mean ALL crashes are causing by other softwares.... no, certainly not.

I agree with you completely on Cineform. It's a great product and I use it. (It is a little expensive though). There are some NLE's that use almost nothing but intermediates and seem to be much happier this way. I am not a big fan of Apple or FCP... but they use the intermediate approach (as opposed to the direct edit approach) and seem to be happier for it. I know that when I was having crashing problems, cineform went a long way towards smoothing the waters.....

Sorry, it wasn't my intent to stop you guys from discussing these issues.

Also, before people get the wrong impression, I never said that Cineform is a great product. and I agree with you that it is a bit expensive for what you get, but it does what its authors promise that it does. I do use it, but it is just another handy tool in the video toolbox, that all of us potentially have at our disposal. The only true way of telling whether a tool meets your needs is to try it out and see. Cineform's demo program is perfectly designed for such a test drive.

Bob didn't mention any of this

When Bob claimed to know the memory usage of Vegas, assuming that he was a moron was what you did, I assumed that he had a modicum of Windows experience. It doesn't take a genius to monitor memory usage. In addition to the process monitor, there are a number of tools out there that can graph this for you, and since Bob clearly has experience in a programming environment, I know for sure that Bob knows that. All programmers (with a job at least) do.

It was a conflict with another software.

Again, and I am being rather polite here, there is a massive difference between resource sharing conflicts and the ability of one app to access the memory of another app. I'll spell it out for you

If Vegas is crashing due to another application holding on to resources that Vegas needs, which is the only way they can interfere, then Vegas is junk.

if you go back into the threads you will see quite a few crashing problems that have been cleared by simply uninstalling or turning off various softwares like updating programs and such

Here is a thought for you Blink, and think about it for a while. When people are sick some get well from homeopathic remedies. Even though we know for sure they do not work. I would not be surprised if shutting down an application could remove a symptom, but that actually doesn't mean that a running application can interfere with another running application on protected-mode Windows, it can't.