Please Make Vegas Pro 12 Compatible for Mac!!!!!


Hulk wrote on 3/2/2012, 11:26 AM
I think the design of the Apple stuff is fantastic. And I'm glad the company is doing so well. It pushes MS and that's great.

But for me I just can't spend the money and be locked into the Apple box. I build and overclock my PC's for a fraction of the cost for an Apple box. Actually you can't even buy an Apple at 4.4GHz. I like to pick top shelf components and build for less. Sometimes I upgrade CPU only, like I'll be doing for Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. Sometimes I have to upgrade motherboard, CPU, and memory. But the rest of the stuff generally hangs around for a decade or more.

I guess I'm just really picky but I have to select each component of my PC to make is work perfectly for me. For example, my current rig is silent. Fanless power supply, and Noctua heatsink and fans that are silent if you are 3 ft from the box. 16GB of memory, quad at 4.4GHz, SSD, the works, all for under $900. And the best components, stuff you can't get in a Mac. Seasonic PS, Asus mobo, G. Skill memory, Noctua cooling, Intel SSD. I couldn't imagine dealing with the cost and compromise of a Mac. At least a store bought PC can be modded and upgraded over the years.
deusx wrote on 3/2/2012, 10:04 PM
Johnny, Johnny boy. Seriously. What the &%'&%$ are you smoking?

Configure a 15" mac book pro to match this Select i72760QM CPU on both, 7200 rpm drive, same amount of ram and you'll see that you would be paying over a $1000 more for the mac even without a 95% color gamut screen ( which you can't even get from Apple ).

Nobody says you have to buy from HP or Boxx, that is the whole point of Apple vs. PC. Choice versus no choices wrapped in marketing bull$##
HYPERION wrote on 3/2/2012, 11:53 PM
The only advantage a Mac has over a Windows computer is USB output. A Mac can natively handle 24 bit@192 kHz and Windows needs special drivers. Other than that a Mac is similar to a PC.

I started on an apple II back in the 70's and left the apple camp after my first PC purchase in the mid 80's. The reson for switching from apple to PC is same today as it was in the 80's => far greater selection of software for the PC!

I have been building my own PC's for years and it is far cheaper to build a PC from quality components than buy an Apple Product. How do you think Apple Corp became so wealthly.................... BTW open any new apple computer and the vast majority of the parts are the same as a PC! The only major difference "mechanically" between a new Apple Computer and a PC is the formating of the hard drive and the OS!
rmack350 wrote on 3/3/2012, 1:23 AM
First off, market share is not quite as good a benchmark as people think. Say Apple has 5 out of 100 seats and everyone else has the other 95 seats. 5% and 95%.

So, out of the total 100 seats, how many of them are running an NLE? 5? 4? 1? If 1% of all computers had an NLE installed then it could quite well be possible that Apple actually holds half the NLE seats. Or to put it another way, Windows could have most of the OS market share without having most of the NLE share. I'm not saying this is true, but it's easy to imagine that it is.

So if I was looking for pros and cons of porting Vegas to the Mac I would look at the size of the market segment that's likely to use an NLE, as well as how tight a hold the existing software has. Cause chances are good that you'd have to raid another company's user base to carve out your own market share.

Second...When I bought my first computer back in '91 I asked my dad for advice. He'd made his living as a programmer for as long as I could remember. He was just about the only person I knew running a PC, everyone else I knew was using a Mac. His advice was that the computer didn't matter nearly as much as the software you wanted to run. Buy the computer that runs the software you want to use. It's still good advice.

GlennChan wrote on 3/3/2012, 4:15 AM
It takes a lot of effort to make something work on the Mac.

Photoshop: This is one of the reasons why Adobe doesn't like Apple that much.

When the 64-bit Mac OS came out, Apple did not provide support for the Carbon framework (which Photoshop uses). So to make a 64-bit Mac version of Photoshop, Adobe had to rewrite their entire GUI using the Cocoa framework (which uses a different programming language and has its share of bugs). This is why the Windows side came out with a 64-bit version of Photoshop first... Microsoft can afford/has the resources to make everything as easy for developers as possible (hence Steve Ballmer jumping up and down on a stage screaming developers developers developers).

Avid: They tried to get rid of Mac support probably because it costs so much to have it.
paul_w wrote on 3/3/2012, 6:51 AM
Its not impossible to port Vegas to the Mac, but its a LOT of time and effort.
There is at least one way...

Nokia developed a cross platform programming environment caled Qt.
I spent a lot of time with this some years back. Basically, it allows one source code to be ported to multiple platforms like Windows, Linux and Mac Osx. So If you write your code using this environment, you only need to write once - target many. in real life though i found that it was not 100% perfect, you do end up tweeking things to get it working in the end, but the work was tiny compared to a full on re-write.
I had wrote a windows application some years ago and got asked time and time again "can we have a Mac version?" ... sounds familiar? So i re-wrote the code using Qt and it worked. It took a long time to do this, about 3 months by myself. But i ended up with a cross platform application. (yes even Linux)..
Admitidly, the application was not as complex as Vegas - but, the same process 'could' be applied. My guess would be based on the complexity of Vegas - i's say around 1 year with a two man team to complete the task. <guess>
Switching over was a real task. ALL windows API calls had to go, ALL DirectX calls had to go, some string types had to be converted to QString etc.. Multi threading was a nightmare! using a new system called Signals to communicate between threads - very different from the way windows do it. Big learning curve.
In Vegas, the biggest pull would i think be directX - lots of stuff using DirectX in Vegas - all those would have to go. All plugins would have to be OFX.
But is this all worth it?? Thats the big question. Will leave that to the marketing guys - thats not me :)

HyperMedia wrote on 3/9/2012, 2:28 PM
Well here is another take. The iPad's will be the other computer. Maybe the iPad will take over. Just read the article at the bottom. I will be buying the new iPad 3. I see the potential of bringing your sample work on a flash card and playing your work back for clients. I did this with portable DVD player. iPad 2 have a little editing program, in addition, Avid have created a app to run on the iPad. If Sony can't see SCS is one of the keys to their future it may be too late.

This is what I predicted back in August and September when Sony release their S Tablet. Apple will lower the price to the iPad 2 so now you will be incite to buy the lower price version. While releasing the newer version. With iPad 3, now you can buy the app to run iMovie, again Sony miss the boat by not adding Vegas to the S Tablet. Have they? Is their any info about editing on the S Tablet?

Let me said this" I do see people buying this and bringing the iPad 3 to the beach and on location ( Photos Shoots) so you can edit photos and small video projects right there. Remember, Avid announce that they have created a app to run on iPad.

I see the PC for home and office. But I see iPad surpassing PC for everything else.

One other thing ...I just left NY Fashion Week 2013. And craze was DSLR camera's. Man, I think half the cameraman's were carrying DSLR camera's. The new workflow was to load their photos onto the iPad edit then send out to the online magazine editor. Using G4 connection. can do this with a PC. But the video screen of the iPad photos looks much better. And...working with your clients with this workflow, they think you are more advance and forward thinking.
John_Cline wrote on 3/9/2012, 3:25 PM
I could see maybe trimming video on a tablet, but certainly not any kind of serious editing. Then there's also the issue of processor horsepower and storage. I use my tablet to play high-quality 720P video for clients, but that's about it.
HyperMedia wrote on 3/9/2012, 4:24 PM
Yes...I agreed. But I can see as more processor horsepower increase and better accessories that will enhance the editing experience for a quick draft. I know odd ball will try to edit on it. I wouldn' use would be to replace my portable DVD player. In addition, use as appointment book and presentation tool. Time and slate keeper.

Those are the things that a PC and Mac does for business. So many things!

No great idea left behind.

When inspiration hits, you can use iPad to capture, record, and share it. Mockup websites, draft process flowcharts, craft free-form sketches, and record voice memos. And iPad apps give you the power to capture brainstorms and ideas wherever you are, so you’ll never reach for another sticky note or notepad again. With iPad you’ll always have your best ideas with you.

This is what I am talking about. I see the PC numbers going down.
riredale wrote on 3/9/2012, 4:40 PM
JohnnyRoy, my homebuilt PC has been running 24/7 for many years, first as Windows98 (!) system with an AMD Duron processor (remember those?).

Every few years I would upgrade with a faster processor, newer motherboard, or upgraded OS (XP) and still the system would run 24/7.

Hardware failures have included a power supply that took out 2 hard drives and a bad motherboard with swollen caps. But for at least the past five years the system has not been changed one bit. I do extensive video editing with Vegas, surf the web, play games, print postage, send emails, watch our Slingplayer, and host a variety of websites--all on a single machine I built myself many years ago and which just keeps running day after day. So your claim that Apple is better because Windows parts are somehow "incompatible" with each other is not my experience at all.

As an aside, my wife was given an iPad last year, and loved it. She used it extensively--until we both got Android phones. Now we both use our phones extensively, and the iPad gathers dust.

I worked for Apple for 4 years back in the early days of Macintosh, and am very familiar with the religious fervor associated with Apple. Back then, Apple truly represented an obviously-superior alternative to the competition called "MS-DOS." Now, most of what they bank on is cult and an aura of obvious superiority. For me, no thanks. I like to build my own stuff and don't need or want their walled-in universe.

I can remember the time when many of us at Apple were tearing our hair as Jobs insisted that we not license the Mac OS to third-parties. We feared that little Microsoft would eventually get powerful-enough hardware to support a Mac-like OS, and that's what eventually happened. Apple is stuck at 5%.

Hyper, I note your enthusiasm for the iPad. Very sleek machine. I always thought it would be cool to have an iPad but with a keyboard and a case so that the screen would be protected when not in use. Also a way to swap out the battery for added flexibility, and a slot for flash memory. Wait: that's called a "laptop!"

So in my life I have three devices: a desktop PC with a 24" screen for surfing at my desk, doing intensive video editing, and handling desktop chores. I have a 12" Dell laptop that is only 3 pounds and can do pretty much everything the big desktop can do, just not as effectively (but it travels well). And now I have my Android smartphone, which is extremely portable and still usable for many tasks such as occasional web surfing, email, phone calls, and, most recently, reading ebooks, which I suddenly find very pleasurable and practical via the free "Cool Reader" app. The Android phone lives in a leather case on my belt. It would be impractical to clip my laptop or an iPad to my belt, though I have no doubt someone has done it. He probably doesn't date much.
Chienworks wrote on 3/9/2012, 5:14 PM
For my 5-year employment anniversary last summer i was offered the choice of either a $650 iPad 2 or a $480 laptop. It took less than half a moment to choose the laptop.

- It runs all the software i already have and use all the time.
- It has a keyboard.
- It has a screen that is both way larger and at an angle to the keyboard.
- It has way more memory and drive space.
- It has way more ports.
- It has a replaceable battery.
- It made the boss happy to spend $170 less.
- Pointing to the exact screen location or drag-selecting is much easier with a touchpad or a mouse than with a touch screen.

A few folks told me that i could get a keyboard in a holder for the iPad that would hold it up at an angle and make it similar to a laptop. That would have added another couple hundred to the price, and it still would have failed at all the other points of comparison.

I'm not saying that iPads (or more generically, thin tablet computers) are useless and don't have a place. But, a more classical computer is still very much more usable in a lot of situations. I suspect that no matter how advanced hardware, UI's, and alternative interaction methods become, there are always going to be situations in which a real keyboard is desirable and useful.
John_Cline wrote on 3/9/2012, 6:48 PM
I'm a little concerned that the popularity of tablet computers is going to have a negative impact on the laptop and desktop computer market making them more expensive. The whole smartphone/tablet interface is also messing with the traditional OS as is evidenced by Windows 8 going to a "tile-based" interface. The Start Button is gone (although there are ways around that using third-party utilities.)
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/10/2012, 9:50 AM
> "I'm a little concerned that the popularity of tablet computers is going to have a negative impact on the laptop and desktop computer market making them more expensive."

Consider this... if you owned a tablet and saw how useful it is... you wouldn't care. ;-) There are days when I don't even turn my desktop on because I get everything done on my iPad.

I can't see the desktop going away soon, but as soon as tablets become as powerful as desktops (and my current iPad is already as powerful as my previous Dual-Core desktop) there will be no need for a desktop. We can use render farms for rendering. There is already no need for a laptop. Laptops have always been under-powered and the current crop of tablets are already as powerful as some laptops and when tablets get quad cores the distinction will be even blurrier. A laptop forces me to always use a keyboard... a tablet allows me to choose when to use a keyboard and when to use touch gestures. It's a far better platform for what laptops are traditionally used for.

> "The whole smartphone/tablet interface is also messing with the traditional OS as is evidenced by Windows 8 going to a "tile-based" interface. The Start Button is gone (although there are ways around that using third-party utilities.)"

Actually when you think about it... nothing has changed. If I understand correctly, the traditional Windows desktop is an "App" on Windows 8. So it's still there. Think about that for a moment. The "desktop" has always just been a graphical shell on top of the OS. It's always just been an "App". On Unix, people choose among several desktops e.g., KDE, GNOME, Xfce, FWM, etc. It's only Windows that locked you into having only one desktop shell. The desktop is not the OS. It's just another application running on it. So nothing has really changed except maybe now someone can build a GNOME or KDE desktop App for Windows 8? lol

deusx wrote on 3/10/2012, 10:41 AM
A 15" laptop is just as easy to take as an iPad and can do a lot more.

Do you wanna be a dork with a crappy 10" tablet screen that can barely do anything other than play youtube videos and still photos ( on a SMALL 10" screen ), or do you want to be a real pro?

It's a F$#%" 10" screen. Anybody watching anything that's supposed to be even remotely serious on it is insulting people who worked their asses off to produce that work and should be slapped back into reality. No matter how powerfull they become there's no way getting around the fact that it's a $hitty little screen that should be used for nothing but the most desperate moments when nothing else is available.
Hulk wrote on 3/10/2012, 12:24 PM
The iPad is a really neat device but in my opinion aside from the Star Trek "coolness" factor they have a limited application window. I think the best thing about them, especially the new iPad, is the super high resolution IPS screen. Hopefully, just maybe, this will drive notebook manufacturers to finally give us the option of high resolution, IPS screen. How about a 1080p IPS screen on a 13" ultrabook? Just increase the font size to your liking and you have one beautiful display. Jeez, add a new Ivy Bridge quad core CPU and you have a 3 pound mobile workstation.

- Mark
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/10/2012, 1:28 PM
> "Do you wanna be a dork with a crappy 10" tablet screen that can barely do anything other than play youtube videos and still photos ( on a SMALL 10" screen ), or do you want to be a real pro?"

I'm using it for song writing with GarageBand for iPad. The workflow is far easier than using a laptop and it doesn't get in the way of the creative process. I also have GarageBand on my iPhone so I can start a song idea on my iPhone while I'm waiting for a train, then work on it more on my iPad when I get home (because it's already there, shared via iCloud), then finish it off on my MacMini if I need to add more tracks and FX that aren't on the iPad/iPhone. But that's just a point-in-time statement. As the iPad becomes more of a working tool for professionals, I'm sure more software features will be added to have the same FX as on my Mac.

> "It's a F$#%" 10" screen. Anybody watching anything that's supposed to be even remotely serious on it is insulting people who worked their **** off to produce that work and should be slapped back into reality. "

Yea, but it's a gorgeous 10" screen. My netbook had a 10" screen and it was useless because all of the applications were designed for bigger screens. If you are judging it by that, I understand your objections. But the iPad applications are designed for a 10" screen and the crispness of the display is far beyond anything I've seen on other 10" screens and with a pinch of the fingers I can zoom in and work on very small areas and all of it is very effortless. You can't compare it to a laptop with a 10" screen. It's not the same experience. The 10" screen really isn't an issue for me.

For the new iPad (which I don't have yet) it's a 10" screen that has MORE resolution than my $500 ProArt Monitor!!! (ProArt = 1920 x 1200, iPad = 2048 x 1536). And... my current one looks spectacular on my 50" HDTV via AirPlay/Apple TV. So you don't have to limit it to 10" when you need something bigger. I also have an HDMI and VGA hook of for doing presentations to larger crowds.

> "No matter how powerfull they become there's no way getting around the fact that it's a $hitty little screen that should be used for nothing but the most desperate moments when nothing else is available."

I get it... you don't like 'em. ;-) All I can say is, I'm more productive on my iPad than I ever was on my PC because it's always available and doesn't get in the way of the creative process. I haven't tried any of the NLE's yet (they look rather limited), and I'm probably not going to finish edit a 1/2 hr TV series with 26 tracks of video and audio like I do on my desktop, but that's what desktops are good for. If nothing else the iPad is a great scratch pad for capturing ideas that you can work in the moment, or work on later on a more powerful device; but most of the time, it's the only device I use.


Posted from my iPad :-D
nedski wrote on 3/10/2012, 2:26 PM
aka ~jr
aka iJR

Seriously though John, your use of computers is at two different ends of the spectrum. For one you have an $3,000 - $6,000 Apple Mac Pro with dual CPU's for your complex video/graphics needs and a $500 tablet for your portable, simple creative needs.

Not everyone, including me, works/shops in that marketplace.

Every few years my budget allows me to spend ~$1500 for a new computer with an extremely important caveat, I usually want to keep the monitor I'm using. I just bought a 42" JVC JLC42BC3000. I use it as both a monitor and a TV. I'm going to use it for a while. My previous monitor is a 37" Westinghouse LCD, I still use it for dual monitor video editing.

The price for a Mac Pro with dual Xeon Hex CPU's and >32GB RAM and multiple server grade hard drives IS cost competitive with others computers that are similarly configured. I've have priced them.

BUT.... Apple simply has nothing in the $1500 price range for me. I can buy or assemble a mini tower computer for $1500 that easily matches and/or or beats the cost effectiveness of the base $2500 Mac Pro. Mac Minis and iMac's simply don't compete in this category.

I'm not criticizing your choices, I'm only trying to point out that the solutions for your computing needs are not always optimal for people who have different needs! I would suggest to you that you make a note of this when you discuss computer configurations.

I REALLY appreciate your postings here and your Boris tutorials. I just watched the BCC 8 preview. When will BCC 8 for Vegas be available? I hope the upgrade price is low. :-)

John_Cline wrote on 3/10/2012, 3:44 PM
"Consider this... if you owned a tablet and saw how useful it is... you wouldn't care. ;-)"

But I DO own a tablet.
deusx wrote on 3/11/2012, 1:59 AM
I'm not comparing a 10" laptop to the iPad. I'm comparing a 15" screen laptop to it and there's no comparison.

My point is that if I have to take anything at all with me, there's no difference whether it's a 10" tablet, a magazine, newspaper or a 15" laptop. They all take up one of my hands. I have to carry them and if I'm going to carry anything then I'll carry something useful and that is the laptop. Just as easy to carry around, just as easy to open and does far, far more, in fact does everything any desktop does. I have my entire Adobe suite on it, Fusion, and all of the Sony apps. Why would I ever consider getting a tablet? Either one will make me use one hand to carry it around, so if I have to do it why carry around something inferior?

With a microphone and RME babyface ( smaller than the iPad ) I can turn any location into a semi pro studio. Pre amps and converters are just as good as what you'd find in a real studio and it's powered via a USB port.

iPad is a toy. It doesn't do much in the first place, and whatever it does it does less than 1/2 assed, more 1/4 assed.

It's easier to open and show off pictures or watch youtube videos when you're on a crowded subway or a bus. That's about the only advantage it has over anything.
Out of that environment it makes no sense at all and anybody using it is basically engaging in techno masturbation, can't even view flash content, it's absurd.
ushere wrote on 3/11/2012, 5:15 AM
personally i'm waiting for an app for my smartphone that'll write the script, film it, then edit it without any input from me.

this conversation seems more about likes and dislikes rather than practicalities.

a. given the choice to watch my favorite movie on a 42" plasma or my tablet (not saying which one;-P), i'll take the plasma. unfortunately i can't take the plasma hiking.

b. ditto to most office work, i prefer my desktop, again, can't take it camping.

c. as to editing, well, i started out with a 15" crt and have slowly ended up with 2 ips 24" leds. i certainly wouldn't want to work on anything less again. but if i simply wanted to view, cull, maybe even compile footage, it wouldn't really matter on what i did it as long as i got real-time playback, especially whilst away on location.

they're all tools, and should be used as and when seen fit....
[r]Evolution wrote on 3/11/2012, 8:26 AM
this conversation seems more about likes and dislikes rather than practicalities.

I'll take a powerful 17"+ Laptop any day over a Tablet/Pad... but as evident in my statement, I do not care about a small device. Practicality for me is having enough Power + Screen Real Estate to do my task.

- I do not ride the subway nor is there any time that I need to have a (less than) 10" computer to do anything. For goodness sakes, my Camera Reference Monitor is 17" - and I would not want to go down in size.
- My kid can play games on her leapster, or my phone, if I need her to be quite in a waiting room.
- I do not have the need to show a client any thing at any time on a Tablet/Pad.
- I do not need to have the newest gadget nor does someone else having one impress me.

Maybe when the Tablets reach 20" w/ Dual i7's (or greater) and house Terabyte Drives, & Multiple GBs of RAM (when all specs match or beat my desk or laptop), I'll buy one. I do not knock it though as I can see Tablets/Pads looking cool and working into the flow for some... just not me.

As for the OP:
- Apple is the Company
- OS X is the Operating System
- Mac is the Computer

- Vegas IS on the Mac (Computer)
deusx wrote on 3/11/2012, 9:33 AM
>>>>given the choice to watch my favorite movie on a 42" plasma or my tablet (not saying which one;-P), i'll take the plasma. unfortunately i can't take the plasma hiking<<<<

Why would you take anything hiking? It's not really hiking then. The whole point of hiking is to leave electronic crap behind. You take a phone for emergency and keep it off. You only turn it on and call for help if your life is in danger, otherwise don't touch. You watch the movie when you get back home, or is that so difficult?

Take long flights and movies on planes as an example. If I see a movie in which I'm really interested I don't watch it because watching it on a crappy screen on a noisy plane is obviously not the same experience and I really feel it's insulting to all those people who went through the trouble making of sure that cinematography and sound are the best they can be. That's the time to watch some dumbed down Jennifer Aniston comedy, or some of those comic book adaptations. Real movies, you wait until you get home. Some will argue even that is not good enough, they should be watched in a theater, but that's another argument for another time.
Chienworks wrote on 3/11/2012, 11:24 AM
No, that's not it at all. It's about enjoying something you want to enjoy, when and where you want to enjoy it.
John_Cline wrote on 3/11/2012, 6:52 PM
I bought my tablet on a whim at Costco one day, it's an Android-based Acer A500-32GB. I wasn't really sure what I was going to do with it but it turns out I use it a LOT for web surfing, media playback and some word processing. I pretty much don't go anywhere without it, however, I don't ever see a time when I would use the tablet to get any serious work done. Now a Windows-based tablet that would let me run a bunch of my less CPU hungry software could be really useful...