Steeldestroyer:

Indeed.  It's a poor way to do business with the non-enterprise market. 

if you are talking about software assurance, the entire IT related market (IBM, Microsoft, Lotus, Symantec....the list goes on) is doing software assurance.  there is no difference between freelance editor and enterprise.  If you are using Avid to earn your money then Avid to you is SAP to an enterprise.

we users should NEVER have the audacity to expect Avid to enhance their software, yet not want to do our part in paying for upgrades.  that just doesn't make sense.  that would be like a studio calling an editor back and saying "yeah, we've decided to recut the movie to cater to the 18 year old audience instead - could you recut for free since we paid you originally?"

if Avid is going to be the tool I use to cut projects, and they keep up with the times, i'm more than happy to pay for upgrades.  why wouldn't you?

no one is talking about not paying for upgrades. You obviously don't have a very long history with Avid's assurance programs.

Steeldestroyer:

What concerns me is the cost of future upgrades to MC. 

Sounds like we are talking about upgrades man.

So what don't I know about the seemingly scary software assurance program???  Am I about to eat my words? =)

jasperfdo:

 there is no difference between freelance editor and enterprise.  If you are using Avid to earn your money then Avid to you is SAP to an enterprise.

There are many differences between the freelance editor and the enterprise.  And I would hesitate to compare Avid to a freelancer as SAP is to an enterprise.  As a freelancer, I could go buy a qualified system and MC, and be running in a relatively short amount of time with no hassle (noting the qualified system).  I don't know of any enterprise that could just buy a couple servers and be running with SAP in a normal business implementation.  Enterprises have far more at stake, and also have far more requirements simply because of their size.  Factors like data compatibliity, migration, security, and redundancy become more important the larger the organization.

It's interesting what companies you mention for software assurance.  IBM pretty much only caters to large business. Microsoft's biggest strength is its business entrenchment, hence the software assurance for most of its business oriented products (and there is currently little to no software assurance for much of the productivity software that could be used in a "freelance" area...like Office). Lotus is a part of IBM. Symantec has software assurance for their enterprise-targetted solutions and a subscription-based model for consumer-level virus updates.  It seems that all of your examples focus on enterprises. Avid's assurance program is the same. 

jasperfdo:

if Avid is going to be the tool I use to cut projects, and they keep up with the times, i'm more than happy to pay for upgrades.  why wouldn't you?

As BLKDOG noted, there is no expectation to not pay for upgrades.  The expectation is that they are reasonably priced (for what they are) and are delivered in a way that doesn't bleed me of money over the long term.

I think I'll let BLKDOG explain the Avid Assurance stuff if he is willing to; he's more familiar with it than I.

PP has critical flaws that rule it out as a serious contender:  no RS-422 control (Mac),

.- I don't know about the Mac version, but the Windows version has it since version PP version 1.0.

no "mark clip" command,

.- Whaaaaaaaat?!?! 

audio-scrub is a user preference - can't be toggled,

.- Yes, it can.

target track mapping is ridiculous,

.- Oh Yeah!  As ridiculous as in FCP.

Interesting that you would use the word "delusion," as it appears that you may suffer from it yourself.  How about backing up your assertions with some reasoning?

.- How about you doing it?

This thing has been discussed  and pointed here to the exaustion, do a search.

but I would imagine that if you use PP, you use AE also, and you'd do your titling on that.

.- Opening an AE project and a composition to do a non amimated title? 

No, thanks.

Avid dominates in shared media environments.

.- Avid still dominates the Hi end and the Pro market.

Avid owns the news market.

FCP is more likely to be found in the small boutique market.

And is entering the online market (in combination with an Avid as offline)

Premiere Pro is the most used NLE in the world.

AVID's  "NEW THINKING"  Is Not So New After All !!!

Now This is Irony at it's best!

One must wonder why AVID has had to imitate another's website and especially call it " New Thinking", when the other sites sloagan is "THINK"... and has been online for some time now.

They Look Hauntingly The Same Or What ???

Just goto -  www.luckie.com  - and see for yourself.

Didja  ever stop to think that this may  be  the company that helped to develop the site  for Avid?

Don't know that for sure but I do know that Avid hires these things out.

BLKDOG:

this may  be  the company that helped to develop the site  for Avid?

Boy, if they did, Avid deserves a refund. It couldn't be any closer to an exact copy without actually being an exact copy.

Brickwad:

BLKDOG:

this may  be  the company that helped to develop the site  for Avid?

Boy, if they did, Avid deserves a refund. It couldn't be any closer to an exact copy without actually being an exact copy.

(I really hesitate to post this because people are going to think I'm trying to stir things up...but...it kinda needs to be said.)

More importantly from my aspect--has Avid "earned" my money?

The current AXP has been a nightmare for me since purchasing in September. I've burned up the phone lines between my office and Avid's--Pakistan first, then later Tewksbury. I have all kinds of people agreeing with me that my issues sure are strange, sure is unfortuate, sure is something "we" need to discuss and see what is going on... yet no solutions, and no problems solved. So while Avid is scratching their collective heads, I'm dumbing down projects, I'm taking projects to be edited on older versions of AXP or FCP, and I'm missing deadlines.

Now the only fix Avid seems to have come up with is an "upgrade" to MC for $500. That's not "New Thinking, that's "Oldest Profesion."

 Nate, since you have no system specifications listed, I have to ask the obvious question - are you running qualified hardware and software as it pertains to the system requirements for XPRO?

Yep! Mac, Software, Deck, Drives, monitors, keyboard, mouse--everything was purchased new in September of 2007. The entire system was built by an authorized Avid dealer, then delivered and installed by that same dealer.

Mac Pro Quad-Core Intel Xeon,

3 Gig RAM

Mac OS 10.4.11

AXP 5.8

QT 7.0

I probably should not have even started this. I guess I just wanted to offer up another reason as to why some people--like me, are not interested in the AXP to MC upgrade, and that there are other reasons for abandoning the Avid ship.

Nate, A lot of us are cutting with 'Pro (or were) without any problems so you really can't blame the software for an issue that may be site specific.

If you'd like to get into it, we may be able to offer some insight into your problem (or maybe not).

We would need to know what  the problem actually is and what you've done, thus  far, with tech support to solve it. Like I said, there are a lot of Mac/'Pro 5.8 systems out  there with no problems so I'm sure we could get you sorted out too. Don't leave out  the possibility of a bad CPU in the equation too.

[EDIT] Whooops, I see one problem right off. YOu need QT 7.3.1 with that OS/AVID combo.

".... A lot of us are cutting with 'Pro (or were) without any problems..."

I know. And that's part of the hazard making a post like this--I end up looking equal parts bitter and incompetant. I should have stuck with my first instinct and just not posted.

But all malfunctions have AXP as the common denominator. PhotoShop, Zaxwerks, Particle Illusion, Squeeze all work as advertised and without fail. I've had an Apple tech do two diagnistics, both came up clean. Plus when Avid Custom service tells me I may just have to live with labor intensive capturing, I may have to live with doing Video Mixdowns as opposed to rendering effects, I may have to live with poor audio scrubs on my time line....I can't help but be suspect. Then when AXP is quickly discontinued...what am I left to conclude?

QT 7.3.1????? According to this chart I am using the correct version of QT.

http://avidtechnology.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/avidtechnology.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=72921&p_created=1154615271&p_sid=AcY3a5Yi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=72921&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTgsMTgmcF9wcm9kcz0yNzcsMTMwJnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9Mi4xMzAmcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PW1hdHJpeA**&p_li=&p_topview=1

I had until last week been running 7.3.1 until THIS matrix was given to me. So I extracted 7.3.1 and replaced with 7.3. Same result.

I don't know  where you are seeing 7.0 as being the correct version for 5.8 but the matrix you reference has 7.3.1.

Could you share with us exactly what the problem is?