Coonass... may I call you Coonass?

No one buys that you're a Vegas user... you have two posts on this forum and both are useless and just to break Vegas users' balls. I picture a pimply geek living in your dad's basement using [or, allegedly using] a pirated version of Avid. So use Avid, no big deal, we're impressed, and move on to an Avid forum. Bye-bye.

Used Vegas since day 1 of sonic foundry.
not here for my health.
either the software works or it doesn't.
Vegas Pro8 is seriously flawed.
I asked about 64 bit because ALMOST A YEAR AGO Sony announced it would be out in beta before the end of the year (last year).
So, again, my question is where is it?

It's only January 10th... geez, relax. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you upgrade to Vista 64, either way. Sony isn't the only developer struggling to get Vista-compatible software out, esp. trying for a native 64bit application. Many seem to settle for the compatibility mode. The ideal solution at the moment is to run a dual boot between XP and Vista, especially if you're using Vista 64.

I'm curious, though, whether x64 will be a paid upgrade for current VP8 users, or just an alternative download depending on which version of Windows you decided to go with?

If you are curious, then you're optimistic - I am almost sure it will be a next paid upgrade.

Dual boot not effective.
Tried 8a on both, even on separate machines.
Zero help. 8a is junk.
The only answer is for Sony to live up to their promises.
Apple FCP has.

I'm also looking forward to the 64 bit version of Vegas and that was a major part of my decision to go with Vista 64 on my current computer.

Vegas 8a is running fine on Vista 64, but I would love to be able to make use of that performance boost that 64 bit should give Vegas.

If you are curious, then you're optimistic - I am almost sure it will be a next paid upgrade.

That would be unfortunate... even MS gives you both 32 and 64bit versions of Windows with a single purchase.

Hopefully, if there is a fee, it's not particularly expensive. Maybe $50 or a bit higher, if you already own VP8... it's not as if it's a completely new version 9 with never-before-seen features.

I would rather have Vegas 8b working before the 64bit version. I think 8b is going to include a lot of fixes. This is based on the length of time since 8a's release. 32 bit mode is unusable in 8a, and yes, Sony was able to re-create my issues - hoping that fix is in 8b too. Anyway, if and when they do release the 64 bit version, I am ready, but again, what's the rush?

even MS gives you both 32 and 64bit versions of Windows with a single purchase

Yes, when you buy a brand new, boxed version of the most expensive Vista Ultimate they do. But when you have the 32bit OEM system and would like to go 64bit, it's considered an upgrade and you have to pay for it.

I think that depends a bit.. For example, OEM biz version - you just pay for a 64bit disc - and use your current serial number IIRC

Yes, when you buy a brand new, boxed version of the most expensive Vista Ultimate they do. But when you have the 32bit OEM system and would like to go 64bit, it's considered an upgrade and you have to pay for it.

You can get the 64bit media if you purchase any boxed version of Vista (except Home Basic, which isn't worth buying anyway), not just Ultimate. Ultimate is the only one that comes with both discs in the box, but you just need to request the additional media from MS if you buy one of the other editions.

Ive also used Vegas since version 1 and tried a lot of other editing systems on the road. Ive introduced Vegas to about 5 people who've ended up using it as well. I get one call each time: "How do you split an event?" And I answer press the "S" key. Everything else they figure out on their own. I swear this has happened 4 times out of 5 :)

Sami

What performance boost? M$ have never been in any hurry to build a 64bit OS, they knew and said very publicly that it gained users nothing, much to Intels annoyance.

Bob.

The only reason I wanted the 64 bit was because of the memory usage over 4 gig. If they only came out with a cool piece of software to do this in XP (like the W2K server), Vista 64 bit would sail away to "Bob" land.
JJK

"it's not as if it's a completely new version 9 with never-before-seen features. "

I don't see how you could know that. For all we know this could be a completely rebranded "Sony Edit Pro 64 version 1.0.

I'd like to think that getting the budget to develop a 64-bit version also allowed them to move on from VFW and do some other major reengineering. However, if they're true to form it'll be a Vegas 9.0 with 32 and 64 bit versions and not a lot of substantial core improvements. And it'll be an affordable upgrade.

They also have to get BluRay authoring into a BluRay Architect product

Rob Mack

OK but what does having access to more memory give us editing video?
I know more than 4GB is hugely usefull for application servers.
I've done a bit of changing around how much memory my systems have and I'm not seeing any speedup rendering, in fact at times, for some, the only way to get a render to run at all is to reduce the amount of RAM.
I can think of several things that would make our Vegas editing experience more fluid and more RAM for RAM preview would be a benefit for those who use it but it's certainly not a fluid way to be working. Background rendering, now there's something that would make for a more fluid editing experience, that coupled with access to more RAM, OK, now we're talking. Thing is though, those two things don't have to go hand in hand.

Bob.

There is a some good potential, as more of the preview footage can live in RAM, which obviously is quicker than HDD. And as you speak - having a "smart" render into RAM of more footage whilst editing would also yield an accelerated workflow. Then when you add in aspects that do utilise memory more (less so with vegas) such as samplers, vst instruments, then these have the benefit of more room to play. I'm also finding more ram allows more multitasking, without interfering with rendering process. Swish around a bit of GPU acceleration and we'll be partying more than any other NLE (unless you already use WYSIWYG with matrox etc)

There's certainly no guarantee that SCS would release a 64-bit version of Vegas before the other Windows based systems. You can't think that SCS is the only group working on a 64-bit version of their NLE. And several other systems already have some level of GPU acceleration. I'd be pleasantly surprised if SCS releases a 64-bit version first.

By "WSYWYG with Matrox", I assume you mean Axio? Axio may be the single biggest factor that would drive Adobe to develop a 64-bit version of PPRo. The PPro/Axio combination is a devastating memory hog.

Okay, there are two different questions. Why would the average Vegas use want a 64-bit Vegas, and why would SCS pursue it and commit to it in an announcement? The second question is actually more interesting.

Such a move could be driven in a few ways. It could be a competitive move to try to solidify a position in a higher-end market. It could even just be an item on a wish list, knowing that they had to do some major rewrites just to move past VFW, they also decided to complete a 64-bit version of the product.

The other possibility seems to me that product developers made some projections into the future and decided they'd better develop a 64-bit Vegas to support things they'd like to be able to do in the future, and just as in the previous example, now's the time to do it.

Rob Mack

"I'm also finding more ram allows more multitasking, "
================================================
I now have 6gig ram, and I no longer run with a paging file. Although I don't find that the individual programs run any better (32 bit programs are set with a maximum memory allotment of which I *THINK* is 2 gig), the multi tasking is clearly faster.

I don't see how you could know that. For all we know this could be a completely rebranded "Sony Edit Pro 64 version 1.0.

If this is indeed the case, then I'd have to rethink my assessment. I've just been under the impression that it was simply a 64bit version of VP8, identical to what we already have in other regards. I suppose I just assumed 8 didn't really come out long enough ago for a version 9 to be released that soon.

They also have to get BluRay authoring into a BluRay Architect product

Yeah, I agree. Either DVD Architect needs to be further enhanced to allow for better Blu-Ray burning including menus, etc. or a somewhat stripped down version of Blu-Print needs to included in the next Vegas suite. Somehow I doubt we can expect to be putting advanced BD-J content on discs anytime soon, though.

I kind of assumed DVDa went up by a half version to 4.5 because they intended HD authoring for version 5. But this is yet another assumption.

Look, deep down I think you're probably on the right track-it'll be the same old thing with a 64-bit option and maybe it'll move beyond VFW. However, I think there's a lot more potential just because a 64bit version is already such an ambitious move. I find it hard to imagine they'd put the effort into it if Vegas was otherwise going to be the same old thing.

I don't think it can be a "more Pro than Vegas Pro" version, though. Bad branding, that.

Rob Mack

Hardware acceleration has been mentioned several times. Now unless I was dreaming at the NAB Vegas party when the 64bit push was announced the word was absolutely no way was hardware acceleration on the cards, it was bad, evil, don't even think we'll ever do it. The alternative was going to 64bit so more RAM could be used.

Now from the little I know having monster amount of RAM is not as simple as just plugging in 16GB of more of the same stuff. You need the mobos that'll take that number of memory modules and they're not cheap. Also most system that do have large amounts of RAM use ECC RAM and for good reason, more RAM means more risk of bits going south and a crash. ECC RAM is not cheap.

Bob.