It never hursts to ask, right? The most they can do is say... nothing.

i'd like to know why it's considered that Premiere has a butt load of more feature then Vegas.

ive said this before and i'll say it again, its a well known fact that many print publications are "friendly" to certain companies due to some of the perks and "gifts" they have recieved or might recieve from them. gaming magazines, as well as many IT pubs... especially ones that review software, arent worth the paper their printed on
I do know that ACP here in aus are rampant for this, so their computer pubs are nigh on being advertisements within themselves.

As for Premiere, it has its uses, as do al teh NLE's in the market, however blanket statement like the above, with no weight to back up the argument are a waste of space.

I wouldnt waste my money or energy on an obviously bias publication.

DJ, I don't waste my money, the magazine is free. It does, as do they all, offer a minimum level of information on new products and services, so it's not a waste of engery, either. But I do agree that they are, for the most part, a shill for the advertisers. And they are partial to certain products and Jan Ozer's bias is sickeningly obvious.

The reason I used his quote was it seemed to focus on the thing that has been discussed here so many times--Is Vegas really trying to compete with these other NLEs in any significant way?

I'd simply like to know their thinking on this. I'm not being critical. Vegas 5 has and continues to serve me very well.

Too, I think more interaction between the (development) company and this particular core of users would be benefical for both parties.

So, if they can't discuss these issues due to corporate policy, if they think it's none of our business, whatever, in any case I'd hope they would say what's what.

I don't see it as a biased statement. Sony does practically nothing to further Vegas in the marketplace. And if that's their prerogative, so be it.

His articles are bias, not that particular statement.

Certainly it's a blanket statement but sadly there is some weght behind it. Let's flesh it out a bit.

Within the realm of what Vegas CAN do, in my probably worhtless opinion, Vegas beats PPro and anything else on the market as well.

But once you step outside the realm of what Vegas CAN do, well the comparison is kind of pointless, it really doesn't matter how badly the opposition does it, cause if your product can't then you're just not in the race.

How much does it matter, well it depends on two things.

1) If you don't need to do what Vegas can't do it's utterly irrelevant. If it's something that Vegas doesn't do natively you might live with the angst of 3rd party tools or workarounds. If you're serious about the game though it could be a real deal breaker when time is money.

2) What Vegas can't do though is many of the things used at the pointy end of the business. That means the high profile players will see it as a deal breaker and not use Vegas. Their buying decisions carry a lot of weight, mostly for nothing more than bragging rights I know but boy those rights sell one hell of a lot of Avid and FCP systems and now Adobe is getting a lot of traction the same way.

I know someone at some point in this thread is going to say who here can afford a couple of HDCAM SR decks and the answer will be pretty well nobody and if you think about it carefully that's the problem. They'll say who can afford to shoot and sca 35mm and again the answer will be the same. They'll say who can afford to shoot with a Viper and again the answer will be the same. It's a very dumb way to look at your market. Adobe know they'll never make good money out of the sales to those who can afford those tools, there just isn't that many of them around but where they'll make the killing is the same as FCP does, the 100,000s of wannabees.

Bob.