Blink, does this mean that you can install both the 32 bit and 64 bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate on the same PC (when you purchases one licence)?

No..... you're only given ONE license key.

When you eliminated the paging file in Vista 64 what happened?

When you open task manger and go to PERFORMANCE the paging file graph is relabeled "PHYSICAL MEMORY USAGE", which starts at about 1gig, climbs to 2 or3, and then sort of levels off from there.

It does seem to be faster and (I don't know about other formats) but when I'm rendering to M2T or M2TS I get close to 100% usage of all 4 cores on my Q6600

On my field laptop I have basic Vista Home Premium that came with two discs, both 32 bit and 64 bit. I installed the 64bit but it runs 32bit programs exactly as if I had installed the 32bit version. I don't see any need for dual boot and to me that just seems a waste of resources.

Also avoid upgrades if you can. It is nearly always better and cheaper to get a new 64 bit machine that has the right memory and motherboard etc to run the OS right. I certainly would not consider upgrading a pre 2 core duo 32 bit machine to 64 bit, and by the time we get Vegas 64 bit it will probably need a quad to work at full steam.

Either my eyesight is failing or they've changed it.
It now reads :
" the emerging 64-bit Vegas Pro technologies which will be demonstrated at NAB, and released later this year."

Bob.

Well, if the comments stating that Vegas 64 will no run on XP64, this is giving me pause as to whether to even stick with with the Windows Platform. I went and had a sit down session with a colleague who is running the latest Leopard and Final Cut Express - it was damn fast in all areas and I'm not sure if it was me or not, but everything about the quality of display, the boot up - everything was faster - and this was only a dual core iMac machine with 4GB RAM. For the kind of work I edit - FCE was more than enough for me. Even LiveType made me smile. I want to spend time shooting - not learning more apps. He even opened up Audacity for OSX - an open source audio editing app and showed me that it had a noise removal feature that is as easy to use as in Adobe Audition - which is really what I need an audio editing app for anyways.

iWork puts MS Office to shame - and is much faster than OpenOffice.

For the first time, I'm giving serious consideration to the MAC platform and I'm beginning to understand why many pros do visual content editing on a MAC. I discovered virtually all the tools I would need can be had at a cost that isn't going to send my checkbook into convulsions.

I guess I'll wait and see what SONY says about backwards compatibility for Vegas 64 and XP64.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

Just make certain you carefully evaluate your entire workflow and then some. I can easily undercut and deliver quicker than anyone using FCP. On top of that I've spent a fair bit of time fixing stuff ups caused by how FCP works in part and in part by the lack of education of most FCP users.
It really comes down to choosing the right poison for the job.
At times I'm simply left breathless at some of the hoops FCP users have to jump through to get the most basic tasks done. Not to say it doesn't have many features that I wish Vegas had though. So far no one has really built the ultimate solution and i doubt they ever will.

Bob.

FCP is the "brainchild" of the same guy that was responsible for Adobe Premiere up to v6. Enough said...

I hope you're right about the speed increase. If video game software writers presently can't make 64 bit versions faster/better than their 32 bit versions, I really doubt that Sony will be able to either. Although I like Vista x64, its stability and its ability to address > 4MB of RAM, that's about it. I see no major advantage, especially since it costs more. Now if Sony says that it fixes something that's "broken" with Vegas, that'll be great. But if editing multiple HDV tracks is a problem, buy Cineform Neo HDV. It makes that problem disappear in an instant. The m2t format is just not designed for efficient editing. I'd hate to think that the solution is to pay for more RAM and then pay more for an upgrade to Vegas x64, when you could just as easily pay the same or less NOW for Cineform.

My biggest gripe has nothing to do directly with Vegas. It has to do with rendering and encoding speeds. And that can only be remedied by have more (and faster) CPUs. Having more RAM accessible may help that a bit, but will have to wait and see.

BTW, as I stated previously, the present 32 bit version of Vegas cannot address > 2GB RAM now anyway, even under Vista x64 (unless you manually edit >2GB aware flag in the exe file header and hope that it works correctly). When you consider that Vista uses about 500-700 MB of RAM by itself, there is no real advantage to running Vegas with more than 3 GB of system RAM, unless you want to run other programs while running Vegas.

"BTW, as I stated previously, the present 32 bit version of Vegas cannot address > 2GB RAM now anyway, even under Vista x64 ."

Not true... :) This is what my experiments have been about. I can get Vegas to access the full 4GB NOW.....(hence why I wanted some people to test the dynamic ram preview). (granted you mention the flag)

Vista business does not cost more than XP Pro (at least shouldn't do based on trade pricing).

Vegas 8 takes 384MB, not including your reserved amount for ram preview.

Well thank god I switched to FCS2 when I did.

64bit and excessive memory options do not mean the issues inherant to this app will be fixed.. with the way sony have been going with vegas, i dotn doubt that this is jstu a means to avoid the current issues faced by 32bit users adn V8.

Vegas has inherant problems which have lived across many builds, and until these issues and problems are dealt with, only then will 64bit be worthwhile.

As it stands, im not holding my breath waiting for 64bit vegas to be the saviour we need...

Im sorry to burst the bubble, but Vegas needs ALOT of work before 64bit makes the app any "better"...

" At present when working with HDV you can bog down very easily by using too many tracks and too many effects. Vegas 64 is supposed to fix this. At NAB they demonstrated 4 M2T tracks playing at the same time with effects with (what they claim anyway) to be no bogging down."

Never had an issue with V8 taking on HDV from any camera so far... i do have issues with stability and codec management though, however the point i think people are missing is that 64bit shouldnt be seen as a menas to rectify a problem which shoudlnt exist in the first place. Vegas used to handle almost anythign u threw at it, and frankly i dont htink its fair for sony to consider that the issues faced NOW can only be rectified by upgrading the OS.
Users shoudnt have to do this

The product should work as advertised In response to this
"4 M2T tracks playing at the same time with effects with (what they claim anyway) to be no bogging down" Ive seen FCP run 5 streams of DVCProHD100 without skipping a beat using only a raid 0 array and 4 gb ram

Edius on my dual core lappy can easily pull 2 M2t streams ON A LAPTOP 5400rpm USB drive without skipping a beat...

Vegas is way behind in the way it manages media within the timeline

O k, I posted this link before, but here's a discussion of 32 bit programs and how much memory they can access:

http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/fsx-and-win32-process-address-space.aspx

This blog is written by Phil Taylor, who is one of the main programmers of Microsoft Flight Simulator X. It explains how a 32 bit program can get access to >2GB of memory. I can tell you that I have checked the Vegas 8P exe file header and the flag is not set. I set the flag myself with a program called CFF Explorer, but I could never confirm that Vegas used more than 2 GB under Vista x64.

I'd be interested to see how you confirmed the 4GB memory use by Vegas 8P.

The demonstartion of Vegas64 at the NAB party last April had four HDV streams with CC and effects and track motion set to move them around, all playing in real-time.

Wow, all this complaining and comparing Vegas negatively to FCP:

I am working on a Vista 64 OS on an HP laptop with a 20 inch screen and having no problems whatsoever. I am working with native m2t video and doing lightening fast smart-renders. The final quality of these extremely fast smart-renders looks exactly the same as the source footage because, well it is the source footage! Last time I checked, FCP wouldn't even work with native m2t clips. They had to be transcoded into the AIC which adds another generation and increases the file size and render time greatly. It seems to me that Vegas is still way ahead of FCP. Am I missing something?

Ive seen FCP run 5 streams of DVCProHD100 without skipping a beat using only a raid 0 array and 4 gb ram

Yeah... after you do a prerender. I've worked with FCP and unless I did things terribly wrong... pretty much everything has to be rendered before it will properly play

Wow, all this complaining and comparing Vegas negatively to FCP:

I can't exactly figure it out either... IMO... FCP sucks and is highly over priced for what it will do.

Am I missing something?

Yes.

Unless you're just doing straight cuts, you'll likely be doing much better going to a purpose-built posting codec like ProRes where you get less degradation in color correction, compositing, transitions, etc.

If you're using an AJA IoHD, you even get hardware support for it.

MPEG-2 was never designed to be re-rendered, it suffers too much for that.

Another negative thing about FCP:

Go over to the DVinfo.net site and look at all the complaining going on about how bad SD downrezzes look! You find it on the EX1 forum, on the Z1 forum, etc. Yeah you can make a nice SD downrez on a Mac if you know what you are doing and buy the right extra software, but there are a heck of a lot of Mac users who are having real trouble with this issue. In Vegas, good looking SD downrezzes are a breeze.

...pretty much everything has to be rendered before it will properly play

I think you're behind the curve a bit on FCP. Quartz has greatly speeded things up, and you can do amazing things without pre-rendering.

Big whoop.

Am I missing something?

I hear what you are saying, but in Vegas I can do it either way. You can even mix both approaches (original footage in mpeg2 and all re-renders and mastering in Cineform).