Thanks for nothing Sony

Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:15 AM

When it comes to anything that is connected to computers and software, upgrading, sooner or later, is inevitable. I'm surprised that you're surprised.

J--

craftech wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:17 AM

I'm more surprised (but not really surprised) at the fact that I'm not given an opportunity to buy DVDA 2.0 ALONE.
The lack of surprise comes from many on the forums telling Sony that they would buy Vegas 5 under any and all circumstances. So this is what you get. You were disappointed with DVDA 1.0 because we tested it out on all of you so now it will cost you $250 if you want better. I'm really pissed.

John

Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:28 AM

Marquat, I can understand it, too. It is frustrating, we've all been through it, at one time or another. Still, this being the nature of this beast (computers/software) we really can't get too upset about it.

J--

craftech wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:31 AM

I can't believe you guys are missing the main point about DVDA 2.0. I guarantee it would work on W98SE. And what about those stuck with DVDA 1.0 that HAVE Windows XP. They're being screwed too.

John

vitamin_D wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:33 AM

Check your calendars -- it's 2004. If you're not even using Win2k, then you're six YEARS behind the curve, minimally.

That seems like plenty of time to scrape together the $600 you'd need to get a competent machine. It's unfortunate you're not in the position to spend the money right now, but it's not surprising that Sony's dropping Win98 support -- didn't MSoft do just the same a few months ago?

- jim

jetdv wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:38 AM

Well, John, I think I've read all 4 of your "intentional xxxx post"

First of all, if you aren't using Win2K or WinXP then you are missing out on the simplicity of using >4GB files. That in itself would hamper me tremendously when trying to make a 4.3Gig DVD.

Secondly, Vegas/DVDA works on very modest hardware. I'm currently running Vegas5/DVDA2 on Win2K on a PIII 750MHz with 256Meg RAM. It is working VERY well. Granted I'm not going to win any races but it's definitely not any slower than V4.

Thirdly, yes you have to buy Vegas 5. Is that such a hardship for the additional improvements you will gain?

Matt_Iserman wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:41 AM

I can't be the only one that was happy with DVDA 1... Sure, there were things that weren't there that I wanted (and have now shown up in version 2) but, at its price, I was quite happy with what version 1 offered in terms of features, stability and ease of use. I tried cheaper versions and was sorely disappointed and the more expensive DVD authoring programs were to expensive. DVD Architect was a happy midpoint for me and now it is an even happier midpoint for me.

At what point would you find it acceptable to stop supporting old OSs? The upgrade from Vegas 4+DVD to Vegas 5+DVD is substantial for the price but it pales in comparison to the upgrade from Win98 to 2000/XP which costs less than half the price to upgrade Vegas.

Matt

TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:42 AM

Well, you're not totaly SOL. Windows 2k or XP will run a a "bad" machine (i ran 2k on my p3-667 with 256mb ram & vegas fine). Goto www.pricewatch.com and check out their OEM prices for Win2k & Xp. Hey, you might even be able to get an upgrade.

I do know how you feel though. The ONLY reason I upgraded to Win95 when it came out was because most games didn't work in DOS/Win 3.1 anymore.

roger_74 wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:43 AM

How can any software company be expected to support an operating system that isn't even supported by it's creator?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:45 AM

I belive they did because of some law suite, not because they wanted to (but I bet they DID want to, just couldn't)

My solution? Vegas for Linux. :) Then MS upgrade costs won't bother me no more.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:47 AM

And yet Win98 is STILL sold for around $100-150 brand new.

Go figure. :)

JJKizak wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:49 AM

Hey, I told you guy's some time ago that you will be forced to go to XP and also possibly abandon Win2k. Its force time now.

JJK

TimLong wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:53 AM

TheHappyFriar,

The problem I have is my wife likes the games that came with Win3.0 and Win95 won't play them!!!! I've had to cobble together some pieces to make a Win3.1 machine so she can still play these old, old games. BTW, WinXP will play them but not the sound. The IRQ's have all changed.

And miserman, I also liked DVD 1.0. But I'm not sure it means much as I am a beginner and the last video editing package I had was Pinnacle 400 (Yuck!!) so Vegas and DVDA seems like a dream. I can't speak for the pros on this forum, but I do like the help and advice I get here.

craftech wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:54 AM

Meanwhile we're still missing the main point here. Nothing like side stepping the issue to avoid discussing it.

jetdv wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:56 AM

Meanwhile we're still missing the main point here. Nothing like side stepping the issue to avoid discussing it.

Sorry. What point did I miss?????

craftech wrote on 4/19/2004, 9:57 AM

Not you Ed. Maybe I would buy Vegas 5 and upgrade the OS, but give me the option regarding DVDA 2.0. It's not fair. I think I have a legitimate gripe.
The decision by Sony was stricly marketing.

vitamin_D wrote on 4/19/2004, 10:05 AM

It wasn't when it was released with Vegas version 4 -- why would that change all of the sudden?

BrianStanding wrote on 4/19/2004, 10:23 AM

I agree with the OS comments. Try out Win2K or XP (once you've killed all the annoying gimmicks), and you won't regret ditching Win98. You can always dual-boot, if you still need access to Win98-only software. That's what I do, so I can read my old CD-ROMs formatted with drive letter access.

However, I also agree with craftech on the DVDA2-only-available-with-V5 issue. DVDA1 was, we were told, not quite ready for prime time, so Sonic Foundry (and later Sony) was hesitant to throw it into competition on its own. Fair enough. But now that DVDA-2 is out, this argument doesn't wash.

Personally, I don't care, because I knew I would upgrade to V5 anyway. But it seems to me that Sony is making a mistake by marketing DVDA-2 ONLY with Vegas. There are lots of folks out there (even some, that ---gasp---, might be using another NLE), that are just looking for a reliable, DVD-standard compliant authoring software at a good price point, and aren't interested in V5. Isn't Sony completely losing this market to Encore, DVDLabs, Ulead, etc.?

Why wouldn't Sony be interested in capturing ALL the markets out there?

JonnyMac wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:18 AM

Get real ... Vegas works as well as it does because it's targeted to ONE operating system, and can be optimized for it. Just like FCP only running on the Mac. I'm sure if Vegas ran on Linux then there would be screams to make it free and/or open source it....

Cheesehole wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:27 AM

> i have an old athlon 900 Mhz i could use for a different OS. but what should i get -- XP or 2000?

I wouldn't go XP unless you have at least a GB of RAM. Win2k is what I'd recommend.

For a modern PC I'd suggest Win2k3 if you can get it. Skip XP unless price is a factor.

DavidMcKnight wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:33 AM

As to the original question, yeah I have to agree. Why not make DVDA a separate purchase or download?? I mean...there is a sep. forum for it, right? That decision does seem surprising. I'm relatively new here...could you ever buy DVDA 1.0 by itself?

If you don't plan to upgrade to V5, then I would look elsewhere for a DVD authoring tool. Accoring to many on this board there are a lot better choices than DVDA 1.0 - although I'm sure you'd like to dance with the one that brung ya.

As to the choice of W2K or XP - XP, hands down. If you have some Win98-only software you can run it under XP in an emulated mode.

Many here may readily recommend the Pro version of XP, but the Home version should do just fine. I run pro on my editing machine though, and I am partial to it, especially for the Remote Desktop features.
Good luck!!

vitamin_D wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:37 AM

But now that DVDA-2 is out, this argument doesn't wash.

I never read that argument anywhere. Maybe you were confusing casual, forum conversation for company policy? Either way I never expected DVD-A2 to be its own app...

eplamondon wrote on 4/19/2004, 11:49 AM

I agree about DVD A being sold as a separate Application.

After last year - when it was announced DVD v.1 was only available with Vegas, it seemed clear to me the same thing would happen with version 2.

In fact, I remember the banter a year ago when folks were saying they were a little disappointed with the lack of advanced features in version 1. But alot of people made a good point - hey, it's version 1, and besides, it does what MOST people would need. But moreso, if you make the investment - which at the time, if you were upgrading, was pretty small..... it made sense that the NEXT update (also would be small) would make it worth the investment.

I went ahead and bought Vegas+DVD knowing that in the long run I'd benefit with a new set of features once v.2 was released. It seemed to make sense at the time - and although it's a year later, the benefit is now here.

And in the meantime, I have been burning countless successful DVD's with version 1 - most of which only needed a standard set of features anyway. Now that I look to add subtitles, alterntate audio tracks, etc - this upgrade couldn't have happened at a better time.

I realize it's different for all folks - but to me there were really no surprises here - well, only pleasant ones....

baysidebas wrote on 4/19/2004, 12:15 PM

Windows Server 2003

"The Register (April 28, 2003): Microsoft deserves kudos for Win2k3's security posture, and "secure by default" is an standard every business should strive for, no matter what they're selling."