My system is pretty solid with HD stuff these days. Using the latest version of Vegas and really not experiencing any of the problems that so many others are complaining about.

I have to ask, why did you buy V8 and V9? You could have tried the demo first and tested that and made a buying decision based on the results of that.

Also why haven't you come here before and sought remedies for your issues - I would have! As you are still working in DV, which truly shouldn't be over taxing your PC, where are you up to with your "same" computer? Have you done any changes to it since your install of Vegas5? Back in V5 days I was working it on Windows Millennium and a slow CPU. I now have a QUADie and 2 GB of fast RAM and fast hard discs.

I ask these questions to try and assist you to get a resolution of your issues. Working DV on VP9 is solid. Why it isn't for you would require you to do some work here fielding questions and hopefully getting some assistance from your colleagues here to make a difference for you.

Best regards

Grazie

Why don't you list what you CAN do in V5, against what you CAN'T do in V8/V9? Doing this may just point to a pattern of failure that maybe, possibly rectified?

What do you think?

Grazie

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=559090I believe I can gauge your inerest in resolving this here (2007) . . [/link]

AT least, how about entering your system specs? I see jrazz invited you to do this back in 2007?

Grazie

All I can say is that my problem with 9.0 vanished with the change from XP-32bit to Win7-64bit and 64bit Vegas. I'm not a professional, and I'm not really taxing the system, but on 32-bit 9.0 was a nightmare, especially with memory related crashes, which was only made worse when using AVCHD input, and rendering h.264 out in HD, that combo was certain to kill Vegas 9.0-32bit, not so with 64, there it's just slow. Cineform helps a lot there.

Have others noticed that 9.0-32 have issues with using h.264 input and rendering to h.264 at the same time? It is as if the codec's collide, causing a memory haemorrhage.

My problems with V9.0c became so severe that I was simply unable to complete the project. All that was on the T/L was one track of XDCAM EX and 2 tracks of HDV plus 1 4 channel wave file. Project was roughly 80 minutes long. As my editing proceeded along the T/L and the project file size increased the problems increased exponentially.

Reverting to V9.0b solved that problem and I've been able to get the job done. Unfortunately V9.0b gave me two instances of another bug that renders it unusable for serious production. Thanfully I caught it in time and thankfully none of my clients pay me enough for me to sweat over loosing them.

Based on many posts here and my brief brush with AVCHD I'd say it makes the onset of the problem happen sooner. Throwing more resources at Vegas e.g. more RAM under a 64bit OS delays the onset of the problem but doesn't fix the problem.

I'm hanging in here to see what V9.0d brings. They've been at it long enough, I hope its fixes not features.

Bob.

Agree that a faster, more RAM, RAID based system helps, but is not a complete solution. I'm using 9.0c under windows 7 64 bit with the latest and greatest PC and it is quite stable, although most of my projects are fairly short (under 10 minutes). It does crash from time to time but MUCH less frequent with the new PC. Any time I use a lot of high res stills, I still try and break them up in multiple projects and then render out intermediates. Recent projects with 4k raw red files are working fine.

Ive done some windows programming back in the day and I still feel like there is a memory leak in Vegas. Completely unproved, just a hunch based on past experience.

At the end of the day, my opinion (just an opinion) is that your best bet is to use the latest version of the software and expect that you will have to update your PC to the latest and greatest at least every 2 years.

And how, Bob, does that relate to this poster's "comments"?

Grazie

I didn't get 5 because Sony/SF "forgot" to put in the pan/crop or track motion presets. :D 6 is better then 5: it has everything 5 has + more & was just as stable as 4 for me.

I have 8 & have no SD issues with it. HD runs out of memory at times, but that's it.

All successive upgrades of Vegas require more computing power, memory, hard drives, video cards, power supplies, Bluray compatibility of all components, and the latest Microsoft updates and motherboard drivers. Anyway thats my opinion.
JJK

I don't recall the version sequence quit so well, but the OP is mostly correct in my opinion. Sony has nearly perfected its handling of SD (except for titling, perhaps), but for HD Vegas Pro is still a work in progress.

All successive upgrades of Vegas require more computing power,...

I'd say that's only if you keep increasing what you do. If you're doing the same thing as you did with Vegas 3 (ie DV) then you'll need near indetical system requirements, except the OS (98/2k was dropped) & stuff needed for extra features (.net required for media manager & protype, for example). At least that's what I've encountered so far.

"And how, Bob, does that relate to this poster's "comments"?"

I'm not certain who you are referring to as "this poster".

If you meant A Grandt's post that I was replying to:
"All I can say is that my problem with 9.0 vanished with the change from XP-32bit to Win7-64bit and 64bit Vegas."

Taken as written the OP might assume this is a path to go down to solve his problem. Based on my analysis it might or he might be even more angry that he'd spent a lot of money and still had no solution.

Then again and as you've pointed out below the OP doesn't seem overly interested in working with us to try to find any solution. I've taking his post as a statement of frustration rather than a call for help.

Bob.

Last October, I added 4 gigs of ram (for a total of 8) and installed the 64-bit version of Win 7. Plus, for some time now I've been limiting the types of video files/codecs on the timeline to either Cineform or PicVideo, and so far my once-terrible problems have been tamed. I'm now very happy, albeit the conversion of all video files to the intermediate sometimes is a bit of a pain - but in the process I do whatever color correction or de-shaking, etc., is desired.

By putting a lot of the heavy-duty work into creating these short intermediates, the load that Vegas has to deal with on the final render of the project is proportionally lightened. I edit in 8c which seems to me to be rock-solid for editing work.

But for rendering, I put all into 9c. I must admit that I avoid really large stills on the timeline - rendering them separately (9b is better than 9c for this). Sometimes I uninstall 9c and re-install 9b just for the stills - if they must be used at full-size in order to pan around in them. Since I don't edit in 9, I don't have to worry about putting all my short-cut icons back on the V9 toolbar, etc., and it goes pretty fast.

Not exactly a streamlined workflow, but: With these work-arounds, I'm able to edit and render trouble-free - so far! (I have a huge, complicated project coming up in a few months; then I'll really know if these procedures can be fully relied upon.)

At present, I'm much happier with Vegas than I was, say, a year ago when rendering my projects always was a tension-filled, work-work-work, nightmare.

Hey great thanks for all the input. I was just expressing frustration with the upgrades. My specs are:AMD Athlon 64 processor, 3000+ 2.1 Ghz. 2.00 GB of RAM XP sp3, which should not really matter, It could be a toaster - If version 5 works well on it then I would assume the following versions would work equally as well, remember I'm not using HD or blue ray just basic dv. The upgrades for me really were not worth it, considering the crashes and the freezing I've experienced with 8 and 9. I guess I could upgrade my system and move to 64 bit. And I could spend hour after hour trying to figure out whats wrong but updates should fix any problems each version has, and for me whats the point I'm still doing what want with V5. So why did I upgrade in the first place I wanted option of doing some HD and Blue ray and there were some newer features in each upgrade that sounded cool and Ithought the program would get better and better. Also the Titler sounded cool and so Media Manager, But frankly the titler for me was and is a complete bust. After effects is easier to use then the titler for me. I'm sure you can make me wrong in all this and you would probably be right and will feel better about it all, but that does not matter to me. This has been my experience and I'm just sharing it. all the best ben

barneybenbarker, thanks for that feedback, now I understand, as they say, where you are coming from. You also make many valid points about your experience, and several that SCS should take note of.

Grazie

I started off with Pinnacle Studio which had many little bugs that were annoying, but it did not crash as much with me as often as many other people claimed happened to them. I then moved to Premiere Elements, which was more stable but with later versions it became less so. I then switched to Vegas 8 and found it stable for mainly DV work. Recently I bought a new computer (i7 920, 12 GB RAM, Win 7 64 bit) and switched to Vegas 9c 64 bit. Once or twice I experienced weird behaviour, including a polite message that Vegas had "stopped" (read "crashed") and asking if I would like to tell SCS about it. The projects were all DV and difficulties occurred with longish projects (eg 90 mins with approx 1000 clips). That's when I had most problems with previous editors as well. It seems we just live in a non-perfect world :).