Megabit,
That looked like a good answer to me. I run 32bit right now because I just didn't want the edge. Been doing that stuff for too many years. Same with HD. I decided to wait it out a couple of years before I jumped in. I can afford to do that so not an issue for me to wait. Good bless the early adapters.

"You tell me."

At a guess I suspect the problem is Vegas tripping over itself. Less cores means less threads running and less problems with syncronization. The little I know about these kinds of issues is to do a bit of reading and decide 'not for me, not in this lifetime'.

I'd also point that there's not a lot of software around that supports multiple cores. The OC'ing gamers stick to dual cores as 4 cores don't make things run faster and dual core CPUs can be run at higher clock speeds.

Sometimes I think some of the problems some of us have with Vegas are the byproduct of our unrealistic demands for faster and faster. Some of things we can do with Vegas are simply impossible on very expensive systems.

Bob.

But my consistent experience with Vegas since version 7 (when I first started using it) has been that it's almost a benchmark application for my Intel quad system - always used all 4 cores, most of the time at 100% usage when rendering, and without any problems.

When I disengaged 2 cores out of curiosity, my Vegas renders became exactly twice as long!

And all this under XP (at first), and under Vista x64 now...

Bob -
Thanks for your answer, I like it when it is not complicated - Change X and things will be better no downside

... I often switch formats so I guess it effects me - although I guess if I am so "hobby-est" I did not notice it .. maybe I don't need to fix it ..

Either way thanks - and I will move to blend ..

The answer is 47.

Glad to see they mentioned the usergroup event. The emails seem to be late goign out.

>> documented by WHO exactly?

Blink, when someone calls you stupid there is usually a reason for it. It is VERY rarely the other person who is the problem. My recommendation would be to figure out WHY someone calls you stupid before you continue blabbering on PROVING that you are.

I have not stated that the rendering problem on quad cores was DOCUMENTED by anyone, I have stated that it was widely reported. The fact that you clearly do not understand the difference between documented and reported is why I am calling you stupid. The fact that even after several posts you have not grasped this difference PROVES that you are REALLY stupid.

If you want documentation that it is widely reported, I would, for example, use google. Try the following http://www.google.no/search?q=vegas+quad+rendering

I would also recommend you look up the words "documented", "reported" and the concept "amazingly dumb" in a dictionary.

>> it's his commitment to the product behind this forum
>> that I question and if it makes him this angry then he
>> should move on

The very fact that you think users of a product should feel committed to said product just proves how amazingly deep your fan-boyism goes blink. Take your own advice please.

>> Now,...can sombody explain why chopping my "quad"
>> down to a "dual",...."frees up" resources for Vegas to use
>> allowing it to render better?

Because it some times rains on Wednesdays. Honestly. That's why. Or, to put it differently, because the SCS guy had no clue what was wrong and that he was hoping that if you go from quad to two cores the fact that you have LESS processing resources and that you have made a change, would be enough to mask the fact that there is a real problem in Vegas.

Lucky for you it worked. It is still bull though.

"Blink, when someone calls you stupid there is usually a reason for it."

Well... it all depends on who it's coming from Terje..... coming from you.... well let's just say I don't place too much value on your words and leave it at that. In fact you can call me pretty much anything you wish.... doesn't make a stick of difference to me. I would suggest however that you certainly don't look too grown-up with all the put-downs used to try and make a point.

In the google example you site (first page): ZERO crashing problems, 2 questions on cpu usage and the others... various related speed comments/questions.

TSK, TSK Terje... not a very good example.

Sooo... back to the original question.... AGAIN

Widely documented by who exactly?

I would assume, that SCS has "documented" the quad core render problem (rendering to HD formats in 8.0c) internally - at least somehow. That is the only thing that matters. They have received numerous complaints and clearly knows about the problem. This MUST be on their errata list - documented ;)

It is totally unimportant what wording someone has used, be it "documented" or "recognized" or whatever... Please, stop this totally stupid and nonsense argumentation about who said what. What the people MENT is the important thing. Some of you are acting like non-grown-ups...

Christian

>> well let's just say I don't place too much value on your words

I know you don't. When I show you how utterly wrong you are, you just run away with your fingers in your ears. You ONCE caught me being wrong, with a home version of Vista being artificially RAM limited and you live for that day. Even when SONY documents show how wrong you are you only do the finger in ears routine.

>> Widely documented by who exactly?

And again, why don't you stop lying? I have never claimed it was documented by ANYONE. This is of course another one of your tactics, when someone shows you how utterly dumb you are, you just start making up stuff.

>> Some of you are acting like non-grown-ups...

Blink has a long history of making stuff up in discussions. He is a silly liar, and he will never stop.

"...and he will never stop."

And, apparently, neither will you.

"And again, why don't you stop lying? I have never claimed it was documented by ANYONE. This is of course another one of your tactics, when someone shows you how utterly dumb you are, you just start making up stuff."

You don't get it do you.... geez....right over your head.

You claim quad core problems are "widely reported"... who cares??? What the heck is a "report"?

You "widely reported" for example in one of you posts that vista64 was a bottomless pit in terms of memory. You had NO idea that Vista has different levels of memory capacity depending on which version you get.

Some poor shlup BTW will one day see your "widely reported" words in a goggle search, take them seriously and try to stuff some ungodly amount of ram into vista64 home..... only to find out....

that they SHOULD NOT swollow "widely reported" words as anything CLOSE to the gospel truth..... like YOU seem to. But hey.... you want to be as gullible as you appear to be....oh well

Now... I will ask again... where are the documented quad core problems?

I guess technically speaking, there are very few "documented" problems with any version of Vegas concerning anything.

It seems teh only ones that do exist, are the ones that appear listed in the "bug fixes" in the notes of the patch release.

The Quad core rendering problem will be oficially "documented" only after it's finaly fixed.

lol

Maybe I could paste the email that SCS tech support sent me on the problem. But I'm not sure that qualifies as an official sanctioned SCS "document".

Bottom line,...they know about it and they are working on it...... "documented" or not.

CT ;- )

>> And, apparently, neither will you.

I usually don't let peoples lies be the last word of a discussion, you are right. I am dumb like that. I should ignore them, but through my own faults I end up continuing the argument forever. What I do NOT do is make up stuff about people and repeat it over and over. I do not consciously lie about others in public fora. Blink does. All the time.

>> You "widely reported" for example in one of you posts

Eh, no, I never did. I was unaware that Microsoft had artificially limited the amount of memory available to Vista Home, and when I was informed about my error I let it go. You see, when people show me that I am wrong I have no problem with it. It was a simple error, I thought companies long since had stopped artificially limiting their software in such stupid ways, I was clearly wrong, some still do.

I never claimed Vista could address any amount of RAM though, even the 64bit address space of Vista has a limitation, albeit a limitation most of us are unlikely to run into in the near future.

Also, if you do not understand the difference between one person reporting something, and the 140 posts returned on this forum when searching for "quad rendering". Interestingly one of those posts have YOU saying: "at least 80% of the people doing avchd are having problems". WOW blink, 80%?

Interestingly SCS has long since ACKNOWLEDGED that there is an issue with Vegas 8.0 and some quad core configurations according to the people who had issued bug reports about it, but hey, even when it is widely reported AND acknowledged by SCS you would rather ignore it, right?

>> You had NO idea that Vista has different levels of memory
>> capacity depending on which version you get.

You are right, I never get the home versions and I was genuinely surprised at such a dumb move from Microsoft. It is a ridiculous move given the fact that the only real benefit of a 64 bit platform is the expanded memory addressing, putting in an artificial limit on it is fundamentally stupid. It's like selling a Lamborghini "Home" version at a 25% discount and limiting it to driving at 35 mph. Lamborghini would never be that dumb, but I guess you should never underestimate the stupidity of the marketing department at a software company.

>> they are working on it

As would a cursory read of posts in this forum have uncovered. Given that blink clearly reads a significant portion of what is posted here, it seems inconceivable that he has NOT read that SCS has acknowledged the problem and that they claim to be working on it in responses to bug reports. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that blink is either dumb enough not to understand that a bug report acknowledged in such a manner is a strong indication of a real problem or that blink suffers from a serious case of Alzheimer's and therefore forgets a significant portion of what he reads. If you ask me I think he is just obtuse.

"Interestingly SCS has long since ACKNOWLEDGED that there is an issue with Vegas 8.0 and some quad core configurations according to the people who had issued bug reports about it, but hey, even when it is widely reported AND acknowledged by SCS you would rather ignore it, right?"

No.
You see... this is exactly what I'm talking about. SCS has claimed no fault against "quad core configurations". What they have advised to a few is that they try to operate with less cores running. People.... like you....have automatically ASSUMED that this is some kind of admission of a quad core problem. It is not.

Someone put it best (and I don't remember exactly who) with a rather great line that said shutting down a few cores will keep Vegas from tripping over itself. It seems to work in some cases, but that does not say that it is directly a quad core issue. You're merely slowing Vegas down and feeding it less input info so it doesn't "trip over itself".

The simple fact is that there are MANY that are operating quad core configurations with no issues what so ever. There are also people that are crashing with DUAL core systems, so this crashing issue is NOT anywhere near as simple as a "quad core problem"

If you shut down your cpu fan and the cpu overheats does this mean you have a cpu problem? Well.... in a manor of speaking... yes.... but it's certainly not the cpu's fault is it. The PROBLEM is no cpu fan and therefore the cpu will simply continue overheat and shutdown until the PROBLEM is fixed. Now if you shut down cores on a quad, you will find that it will lasts longer before it cuts out. Does this mean it's a core problem? No.... you're simply generating less heat so the overheating doesn't come on as strongly.

Interesting... I spent most of the day yesterday on the roof of a high rise building. The roofers were trying to fix a leak and they couldn't find it and we got called in as a result. When we got there we noticed that the roofers had chopped at least 20 test holes through the drywall ceiling around the area of the leak and they still couldn't find it. Logical to assume the leak would be in the same area where it was coming in... but a wrong assumption none the less. We found the leak way the heck on the other side of the building about 120 feet away from the point of interior entry. It was coming in around the exit point of a vent stack, dribbling into an I-beam channel then dropping onto the vapor barrier. From there it spread itself out and entered the living space through a seam in the vapor barrier about 70 feet away. Neat how simple things can get so complicated.

There is a thread here somewhere from Serina. She had no crashing issues. Then she updated her video card.... and started crashing as a result. Now, could video hardware and/or its drivers be why Vegas is "tripping over itself"?

Simply put, people.... like you.... jump to a pile of conclusions ASSUMING quad core problems simply because the crashing appears to diminish when shutting down cores. It's a WRONG assumption. SCS didn't suggest a PROBLEM when mentioning shutting down cores.... they merely suggested a possible CURE..... different thing entirely.

It is good to see you're finally talking about the nature of the problem instead of trying to deny its existance.

Suffice to say it has been identified, to some extent addressed but not fully cured. As you rightly say changing the number of cores only affects the probability of it taking a system down, that's why SCS Support is suggesting users try that approach, it may enable you to complete a render but it certainly does not cure the problem. We'll have to wait for another release for it to be hopefully put to rest.

That said whoever can finally get an affordable (<$20K) system working reliably with HD could have the world at their feet. It's unfortunate that even if SCS solve their current problem the lack of support for things as basic as OMF and collaborative workflows precludes them from taking a shot at the very top but still they could make a serious dint in the market for mid level systems.

Perhaps that's why V9 is such a long time in the works, they want to get this one right.

Bob.

Look at us,....this whole thread is hilarious!

CT : - )

"It is good to see you're finally talking about the nature of the problem instead of trying to deny its existance."

No Bob... don't put words in my mouth. I never said crashing wasn't an issue. In FACT if you go through the posts you will CLEARLY see that I had HUGE crashing problems once upon a time.
Please don't make things up.

What I have said.... and maintain is that the crashing is more than likely a hardware/software conflict as opposed to silliness like "quad core problems" or "memory leaks". Not ONCE have I EVER said that crashing was a figment of one's imagination. In other words my stance on this crashing issue hasn't changed one iota from what it was yesterday.... last week.... last month....
Get your facts straight