I just thought to let you know I just ordered my MC 3.0 upgrade from AXP looking forward to it bugs or no bugs it's the best system out there the rest really just aren't in the same league...

CR8VDO:

have the proper hardware

Your system specs say you have an nVidia 8800 card.  That's not the proper hardware.  I'd therefore say it's safe to assume that any and all issues you've had with your Avid software are entirely your fault because you deviated from the required hardware.  Buy a certified system first...install and run Avid second...if that doesn't work, then complain.  Otherwise, your opinion is moot because you failed to follow the requirements.

CR8VDO:

Would you expect a moderator to say anything less.

You obviously haven't been to these forums much.  I've seen Blkdog crucify Avid with the best of them.  He's hands down the most impartial and openminded moderator I've come across.  He knows what works with Avid and he knows what's broken and he'll fairly point out both.

Michael.

        so you dont like the software or the company  so shut up and edit with what ever you like  oh wait you dont like any of the apps oh well  i  will set here and edit with a big smile  as i  enjoy mc-3.0 working rock solid on my unqualified system

and for the record i do respect the mod's here they take a lot of bs from some bitchie people i for one would be still back on premire pro complaining about constant lock ups   i raise my glass to you guys and gals Marianna is the rock of avid

peace

One observation:

I find it interesting that some users on these forums note that because Avid is a "resource hog" it needs a certified/qualified system to operate properly.  The implication is that this heavy use of resources is a good thing.

It seems strange to me that we (as users) would encourage a company to have a resource-intensive application.  I've heard people (not necessarily on these forums) complain about bloat in Operating Systems, Browsers, Antivirus, and even other professional applications (Photoshop, etc.).  Yet somehow it's a great thing that Avid can only work on specific systems because it requires huge resources.

I don't deny that an application like Avid will take a significant amount of power.  However, I do question some of the listed requirements and apparently incompatibilities that appear again and again with no remedy.

Additionally, there's no doubt that this community is far better than many others, but there seems to be a pervading sense of "Avid is a gift to mankind" (particularly on this thread); "we should all thank Avid for how it has enriched our lives."  The closest thing I can compare it to is the Apple reality distortion field.

I don't think that the discussion about "Resources" necessarily refers to Code resources. More, I think it's directed to Avid's unique ability to do things like play back multiple streams of HD (even different frame sizes and rasters) in real time to name a simple ability. Avid does much more heavy lifting than just about any other NLE out there and those capabilities require a tight rein on the hardware side.

On the other hand, I do agree that the code itself has reached the tipping point and, though 3.0 has done much to stream line it, could use a re-write from the ground up. However, I don't believe it's necessarily CPU resources we're talking about here.

Steeldestroyer:

"we should all thank Avid for how it has enriched our lives." 

Whoever said that most likely, like myself, came over to Avid from the linear world of editing. I don't think you can fully appreciate just how true that quote is unless you've come over as well. NLE only editors have NO IDEA what it took to create complex multi-layered, multi-effects programs in that environment. What an advanced level Avid editor can achieve in 15-20 minutes, including rendering could easily take an entire 8 hour work day in the linear world. I'll never forget the first time I fully realized just how much productivity power I had at my fingertips. It was like someone cut the ropes holding my hands behind my back and allowed me to change my mind without losing it. And for that I am very grateful to Avid - the true pioneer in Non-Linear Editing from which all others have come.

Steeldestroyer:

I find it interesting that some users on these forums note that because Avid is a "resource hog"

No that is not the problem. Avid is actually a very efficient software especially when you factor in its age. It minimizes/maximizes will little trouble. You can open other apps along with it. You can encode while you edit. etc.

The problem is how Avid interfaces with the basic components of your computer (at least on the PC side). Avid does not seem to use a standard HAL system. So changes in hardware can break Avid without some involvement from Avid engineers. To shift to that, like resolution independence, probably would require a complete rewrite. We are talking about several years of top engineers working full time (aka million$$$). Eventually Avid has to do it. I just hoped it started around the DNA era (as that hardware would have revealed this weakness).

 I find it realy funny when some keep saying how Avid needs to be able to run on all computers and so on. And they keep talking about how other NLE systems or so much better. Like FCP. well last time i looked FCP only run on a Mac... and what.. wait Avid runs on PC and MAC!   WOW talk about haveing a step on things eh?

 I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC, given the potential spike in market share.

" I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC ..."

• The current version drives sales of their "own" hardware
• The R&D might not actually have a sustainable ROI
• They would then need to support, literally, thousnds of hardware combinations (something even Avid avoids, by offering a narrow range of platforms)

because Apple is not interested really in creating a great NLE. They are interested in selling their own hardware.

Larry Rubin:

 I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC, given the potential spike in market share.

Because Apple is a hardware company. And most users overly underestimate software development cost. Meaning at the price point of FCS, the Adobe dominance of desktop apps and does not have the potential constituents as iPods/iTunes, it is not as worth as much as you may think. It is still probably a lot to us pedestrians but I doubt anywhere near iPods.

It also does not also fit the Apple image. Can you picture FCP running on one of those PC cases that looked like a washed out 1980s metal singer designed it?

then again, Jobs is the billionaire. Not me.

Larry Rubin:

I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC, given the potential spike in market share.

I would hazard to guess that the potential spike in FCP's market share would be directly related to a drop in Apple hardware sales. 

Picture a graph... FCP market share going up over time, sales of MacPro's going down.  The cost of FCP would then have to go up, which may also decrease it's market share as it would then be on a more even playing field with Avid.

Kenton.VanNatten:

I would hazard to guess that the potential spike in FCP's market share would be directly related to a drop in Apple hardware sales.

Hmmmm....do you think that could be because Apple doesn't have full confidence in it's platforms being superior enough to PCs, if customers could make that choice? From what I see, Mac users are very loyal to Mac and would not buy PC given the choice anyhow. And come to think of it, I can't recall any PC users who express the same degree of product loyalty. I myself would prefer to work on a Mac, but our shop went PC, so I'm stuck with it. But I should have been more specific - I was thinking of the already existing PC user base as opposed to new buyers as the marketing focus. Kind of an add-on market.

 Folks, I agree. AVID recomends using an approved system and going on a non approved is a "proceed at own risk"; AVID is not to blame. My only gripe is JVC 24p HDV. It has been tossed around since XPP days and was now, with MCv3, announced, advertised, media hyped as finally implemented. Some of us have found out the harsh way and are stuck. I have gone the AVID way as for investing in an approved hardware and where is my solution?  Has AVID taken the time to come up front an publicly clarify to us and future clients to be aware of this limitation which is still advertised as a reason to buy or upgrade to MCv3 ?  I know we have to research before we commit, but do we have to search so hard to find the answer or the warning. It feels worse than reading a 20 page contract with vey small fine print. 

I like AVID, their productivity, etc...and I'm a bit mad because I play by the rules and I can't work on my preffered editing program.