I'd love to know where I could get a $100 gaming card, heh. Most decent gaming cards start at $350, but can reach up to $1000 if you look at something like the GTX 690. Granted, even those aren't designed exclusively for GPU acceleration of things NLEs, but other applications besides Vegas seem to have managed implementing GPU acceleration in Windows using non-pro GPUs. Adobe's stuff does a decent job, and AFAIK they recently updated AE CS6 to get the GTX 600 series cards working with its GPU accelerated raytracing, which was a pretty quick of them, IMO. The CUDA feature on regular old nVidia gaming cards does wonders for acceleration.

As far as the Pro cards go, I believe it's possible to modify the nVidia Quaddro drivers to work with the GTX gaming cards, and while not all the acceleration features will be supported by the GTX card (though apparently some are), users have reported that does improve overall system stability if they were prone to problems before.

Macs provide a moderate degree of greater stability, sure; but at the expense of hardware choice. And let's not forget the fact that after 2+ years of no updates, the Mac Pro line of desktops received what amounts to one of the most half-hearted "updates" in computer history. It doesn't use the newest 8-core Xeons and ignores every interface advancement made since the last time the Mac Pros were updated... no USB3, no Thunderbolt, no SATA III, no PCIe 3.0, and it features a default graphics card option that's neither pro nor modern (and even the optional GPU upgrade is an oldie).

When Apple themselves don't seem to be sure where their Pro line of desktops is headed, I wouldn't want to get involved with them, myself. I don't blame them, either. The amount of money those things pulls in must be miniscule compared to the iPad/Phone/Pod/etc. markets.

Now, if SCS can get Vegas stable on Windows for the majority of their customers while simultaneously getting it on OSX, that's great. It's no skin off our noses, and benefits people who use OSX exclusively, as well. But while the software suffers from so much instability on Windows, it's silly devote any resources to creating an OSX version. I don't have a ton of problems with V11 myself, although occasionally I will hit a bug that someone else here has reported.

SCS Facebook message
"We are looking for beta testers for a new Mac-based application"

JohnnyRoy wrote much of it is caused by editors that buy $100 game cards and expect $1000 pro graphics card stability.

Quite funny that one of the users in this forum enjoying a totally rock-stable Vegas 11 for hours every day (me) has just a simple GTS450 card... which, while rendering to full HD / 50i / 32 Mbps, supports all my other busy activities (like other instances of Vegas) on two 1920 x 1200 monitors running as Windows extended desktop....

... but maybe it works so well - with reference to the tittle of this thread - because it is mounted in a Mac Pro running Windows 7 natively (without Bootcamp, Parallels etc)

Dave, Let me just comment on a couple of your points because I feel it's important for clarity.

> "I have edited on Mac based Avids (Symphony, Adrenaline, DS Nitris) and Final Cut (versions 4 thru 7) and believe me, they still crash"

I was was not implying that Mac programs don't crash. The Mac Finder has a "Force Quit" menu option built in for a reason ;-) ...all software has bugs and misbehave at times. The point I was making was about software that includes things like GPU acceleration which is hardware dependent. It is simple math to figure out that if you only have to support 1 or 2 graphics cards instead of hundreds, you can find more bugs when testing because you have fewer test environments. That has been Apple's model and why they will never release OS X for the PC even though it already works on Intel. Of course if you write poor quality code and don't properly test it, you still get buggy code even on a Mac.

> "And also Mac is QT based. Apple has been known to break their own programs, as well as others like Adobe, when they update QT. I was running FC Pro Ver 4 when a QT update came about (I think the current version of FCP was 5 or 6), and it broke the capture on Version 4. When Apple was questioned on the forums, the response was upgrade to the current FCP."

If Microsoft issues an update that breaks Office, they are only going to fix Office 2010, not 2007 or 2003. It's no different. If you don't keep your software current, you run the risk of breakage as the rest of the world moves forward.

> "I am glad to see Sony expanding to Mac because I think it will greatly increase their market and fill a void in the editing arena, but I don't agree that the product will be any more stable. It is still software, prone to bad programming and OS updates and hardware issues."

True but it's an opportunity to clean house. I don't believe that software becomes unstable because of bad programming (although that can and does single-handedly cause it), it becomes unstable over time because earlier assumptions become untrue. For example, a programmer make an assumption based on how DirectX works, and then you switch to OFX. Now that assumption is no longer true and you get unexpected behavior in parts of the code that you didn't think would be affected. Re-writes allow for re-architecting and re-evaluating assumptions. Sometimes you just have take a "clean sheet" approach and throw every thing out and say, "How would I built it knowing what I know today?" and you usually get a better product.

~jr

I'm really excited about the possibility of VVPro running on OSX...

When we upgrade our workstations we wait until the new technology is about 2X the speed of our current fastest system and then we pull our slowest system from the line. (Our last upgrade over 2 years ago was an overclocked 6-core 980X which replaced our last dual core system...) Right now our 4-core Mac Pro is our slowest system but we need it for clients who require FCP 7 collaboration. This Fall Apple is supposed to release a 16-core Mac Pro (with two 8-core cpus) which has PCIe 3.0, Thunderbolt, 8 memory channels, and USB 3.0. Although pricey hardware, it would be great to have FCP 7, CS6 and Vegas all running from OSX on our fastest system.

This Fall Apple is supposed to release a 16-core Mac Pro (with two 8-core cpus) which has PCIe 3.0, Thunderbolt, 8 memory channels, and USB 3.0. Although pricey hardware, it would be great to have FCP 7, CS6 and Vegas all running from OSX on our fastest system.


Unfortunately, that's not the case. Apple very recently released this year's update to that line (the first in about 2 years), and it featured none of those things. It's hard to see why they bothered with this update, at all:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/240001800

According to the article, Apple has said there could be another update sometime next year; but no word on exactly when, so it could easily be the latter half of next year, leaving users to wait a year or more for the next update.

I agree with you Bob that it is unlikely that SCS is in the process of re-jigging Vegas for Mac. Unless...

>> If SCS can find the resources to embark on such a venture why are we still reliant on the Byzantian VFW, declared dead over a decade ago by Microsoft?

Maybe SCS has decided it is time to move off VfW and onto more recent stuff. If they did, they would probably have to re-write most of the core of Vegas anyhow, and that might have spurred an internal discussion about an amount of platform independence. That might lead to portation to Apple. If they have to re-write the core from scratch, why not do it in a portable manner...

I don't see how SCS could move onto Apple (or away from VfW for that matter) in another way.

My concern NONE of the beta is for a pro editor target user at all.

They might be doing a platform agnostic simple editing tool and maybe some audio as well.

Taking a ques from apple with FCX ....there are a lot more people editing their own youtube videos to pros - going for the volume sales and maybe a price point way below FCX.

The development of pro software could end down the road if that is their plan.

My concern NONE of the beta is for a pro editor target user at all.


I don't think there's much risk of that. The stickied forum post about the beta testing recruitment makes specific reference to Professional users and focusing on development for 64-bit versions going forward.

So while 32-bit software development may be at risk of stopping not too far down the road, I don't think they'll end the Pro line unless V11's bugs end up not being resolved, and it seriously impacts sales of V12.

> "So while 32-bit software development may be at risk of stopping not too far down the road, I don't think they'll end the Pro line unless V11's bugs end up not being resolved, and it seriously impacts sales of V12."

It would make sense for Sony to drop 32-bit support. It's a dead end that's just sucking up resources. Other vendors like Adobe have already done this. I think it would be great if Sony could just focus on testing 64-bit support. I don't even install the 32-bit version of Vegas Pro anymore because all of my plug-ins are available for 64-bit. Supporting 32-bit only made sense while plug-in developers were catching up with the times. I'd bet this would get Vegas Pro stabilized a lot faster because it would cut their testing in half.

~jr

I'd bet this would get Vegas Pro stabilized a lot faster because it would cut their testing in half.

I'd agree with that, but I think it'd be wise of SCS to announce something like "Vegas 12 will be the last release that includes a 32-bit version". Or maybe just say right now that Vegas 11 will be the last.

There are still people using 32-bit Windows and 32-bit Vegas because a) they feel 32-bit Vegas is more stable and b) 32-bit Windows is what they happen to be using at the moment. A bit of advance notice would help those people make plans. As it is, there's going to be the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth over Windows8.

The other thing that occurs to me about getting Vegas stabilized faster is that these applications that are about to go into Beta have probably been in development for a while. I imagine that's sucked resources away from the current crop of products.

Rob

Well, there's folks like me who get all their work done and bring in the bacon using 32 bit systems and XP. Vegas becoming 64 bit only would not make me upgrade *ALL* my PCs, and i'm not going to use a version of Vegas that only runs on my newest laptop and nothing else. I don't run *ANY* other software besides Vegas/Forge/ACID/DVDA that even comes close to taxing my current four year old hardware, so upgrading might be several years away.

I suspect i am not in an insignificant minority, so legacy support may be something for SCS to at least ponder.

> but I think it'd be wise of SCS to announce something like "Vegas 12 will be the last release that includes a 32-bit version"

....is wishful thinking, and highly unlikely, as SCS never flagged that Vegas11 would be exclusively Win7 until it was released, leaving those with WinXP high & dry.

Well, there's folks like me who get all their work done and bring in the bacon using 32 bit systems and XP

Hasn't the ship that is Windows XP already sailed, as far as Vegas is concerned? Seems to me that if you're determined to use XP-32 with Vegas that you either need to stop at VP10 or make whatever effort you need to make to install VP11 on it as an unsupported OS.

There's nothing wrong with that. XP has been a perfectly good operating system. Most of the Windows machines where I work are still running XP. But our clients are using and selling Windows7 so we will move on.

If I were in SCS's position, the only "legacy" item I'd feel compelled to support is the VEG file format.

rob

SCS never flagged that Vegas11 would be exclusively Win7 until it was released

Seems like a good point but I think they've already implied that they're heading for a 64-bit product line, and if they want to sell those new products to old customers then it'd be a good idea to start nudging the customers at some point.

Rob

If I were in SCS's position, the only "legacy" item I'd feel compelled to support is the VEG file format.

good point.

i appreciate many people are still happy editing with xp, but in a commercial environment one has to move with the times or be left behind. not that there is anything wrong with being 'behind', especially if it's still earning you an income, but i'm sure advances are being made that require 64bit processing, and resources spent supporting older software seems more a luxury than a necessity, especially given the size / manpower of scs.

i'm just hoping that a. there's one more point release of 11 to clear up the outstanding, documented bugs, and b. 12 wont be win 8 based. i mean it's enough sorting out problems with vegas let alone a new os pre sp1 ;-)

I believe Vegas 11 runs on Vista as well as 7, correct? There was a large technology change between XP and Vista, while the change from Vista to 7 was much gentler. I would imagine that SCS will maintain compatibility with at least the previous OS as well as the current. Dropping all but the current would really mean shooting themselves in the foot. It generally takes the full life cycle of an OS version to get the majority of users to adopt it.

Although, from the statistics i've read, there are still more XP users than there ever were Vista users.

I'm not sure that "behind" is an accurate description. Vista/7/8 offer nothing i need or want that XP doesn't have. There is only one single thing that XP isn't accomplishing for me and that is running Vegas 11. But, then again, there's nothing that Vegas 10 or 11 offer that i need or want that 9 doesn't have. True, there are many who do have such needs, or at least wants. However, "getting work done" seldom equates to "using leading edge technology".