OK,

My vista upgrade to my home computer hasn't been as smooth as the 
upgrade adviser has lead me to believe. I've had to replace a couple of 
important software packages, and have had to replace one piece of hardware.

Now, I've been asked to string together some video for a project my 
wife's school is working on, and I go to fire up my trusty Media Studio 
Pro. Crash just as it's opening, and all sorts of warnings about the 
program being incompatible. No combination of compatibility options 
seems to work. Grr, OK.

I think I'll move to Premiere Elements. From the looks of the 
screenshots on version 4, I'll be losing very little moving from a $400 
package, to a $100 package. I've been very happy with just about every 
other Adobe package out there, and if it's relationship to Premiere CS3 
is anything like Photoshop's respective packages, I really shouldn't be 
losing much, maybe a few of the more advanced video editing features, 
but it looks to be fairly feature-rich. All I really need is to produce 
proper files for DVD authoring, Titling (graphical, and basic), and 
maybe moving paths for some "slide show" type productions that I do from 
time to time.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> OK,
> 
> My vista upgrade to my home computer hasn't been as smooth as the 
> upgrade adviser has lead me to believe. I've had to replace a couple of 
> important software packages, and have had to replace one piece of hardware.
> 
> Now, I've been asked to string together some video for a project my 
> wife's school is working on, and I go to fire up my trusty Media Studio 
> Pro. Crash just as it's opening, and all sorts of warnings about the 
> program being incompatible. No combination of compatibility options 
> seems to work. Grr, OK.
> 
> I think I'll move to Premiere Elements. From the looks of the 
> screenshots on version 4, I'll be losing very little moving from a $400 
> package, to a $100 package. I've been very happy with just about every 
> other Adobe package out there, and if it's relationship to Premiere CS3 
> is anything like Photoshop's respective packages, I really shouldn't be 
> losing much, maybe a few of the more advanced video editing features, 
> but it looks to be fairly feature-rich. All I really need is to produce 
> proper files for DVD authoring, Titling (graphical, and basic), and 
> maybe moving paths for some "slide show" type productions that I do from 
> time to time.

Oh, yeah, my question was:

Does anyone have any experience with Premiere elements? How do you like 
it? Is there anything the pro version does that would make it worthwhile 
to spend extra on the pro version?

Post a reply to this message

What about Windows Movie Maker?

*runs like hell*

Post a reply to this message

> What about Windows Movie Maker?
> 
> *runs like hell*

Tried it. Didn't like it. Highly inflexible. (I mean, I thought the El 
Cheapo DVD editing software that came free with my DVD drive was naff, 
but THIS...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
>> What about Windows Movie Maker?
>>
>> *runs like hell*
> 
> Tried it. Didn't like it. Highly inflexible. (I mean, I thought the El 
> Cheapo DVD editing software that came free with my DVD drive was naff, 
> but THIS...)

Used it. Sucked. And when I was done, I found out it only saved to WMV. 
Spent an hour finding a converter...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Used it. Sucked. And when I was done, I found out it only saved to WMV. 
> Spent an hour finding a converter...

All your [data]base are belong to us...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible escribió:
>>> What about Windows Movie Maker?
>>>
>>> *runs like hell*
>>
>> Tried it. Didn't like it. Highly inflexible. (I mean, I thought the El 
>> Cheapo DVD editing software that came free with my DVD drive was naff, 
>> but THIS...)
> 
> Used it. Sucked. And when I was done, I found out it only saved to WMV. 

why would you expect otherwise?

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
> Used it. Sucked. And when I was done, I found out it only saved to WMV. 
> Spent an hour finding a converter...

Mencoder ;).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> My vista upgrade to my home computer hasn't been as smooth as the 
> upgrade adviser has lead me to believe.

  But why did you "upgrade"? Wasn't XP working for you for some reason?
Was there something in Vista which you really needed and which isn't
available for XP? Peer pressure? Hype?

  Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.
Why not wait until it stabilishes enough, and as many software houses as
possible offer free Vista patches for their software? When in some years
you are in a situation where you simply *must* "upgrade" because there's
no other option, then maybe.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.

hey, people were lining up to buy a certain expensive blu-ray videogame console
which had no worthy games whatsoever on day 1 and a very bad press!  People are
attracted to shiny stuff.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:59:50 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.

People are sheep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:47d6d1a5$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:59:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>>   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.
>
> People are sheep.

 "Baaaa"  :)

   I've read a lot about Vista - I don't want it. XP is good. Nearly two 
years now, and no BlueScreens... :)


    ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:44:52 +0000, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47d6d1a5$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:59:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>>   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.
>>
>> People are sheep.
> 
>  "Baaaa"  :)
> 
>    I've read a lot about Vista - I don't want it. XP is good. Nearly two
> years now, and no BlueScreens... :)

I've got it as a second boot option on my HP Pavilion.  My first 
experience with it was not good:  I wanted to use the firewire interface 
to pull some programs off of my DVR; had to install an XP driver for it 
and the OS only detected the port as being there half the times I tried.  
I finally got it working after a while.  I turned off UAC, installed VNC, 
disabled Aero, got everything working *perfectly* so I could take the 
machine (sans monitor and keyboard) back to where the TV is, plug it in, 
and access it remotely over the wireless network.

I then shut the machine down and powered it on one last time to make 
*sure* it would do exactly what I wanted.  It did.

So I disconnected it and took it to the back of the house and plugged it 
in.

And I couldn't get to it.  No way, no how.  So, frustrated, I grabbed a 
monitor to see what the dumb thing had done.  You know what?  It reverted 
EVERY SINGLE CHANGE to the user profile I had put in place.  UAC was 
enabled; Aero was enabled.  VNC wouldn't start; the firewall (which I had 
disabled) was active.  It was as if I had just completed the "first boot" 
setup.

If there's one thing that will piss me off about a piece of software more 
than anything, it's the arrogance of programmers who think they know 
better what I want than I do, and then implement something that *undoes* 
every customization I have done so it works the way *I* want it to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.

It has SHINY THINGS!!

> Why not wait until it stabilishes enough, and as many software houses as
> possible offer free Vista patches for their software? When in some years
> you are in a situation where you simply *must* "upgrade" because there's
> no other option, then maybe.

That's my plan... [Assuming I can't find a better OS first.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

In article <47d6da2f$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> Warp wrote:
> 
> >   Personally I don't see why anyone would want to "upgrade" right now.
> 
> It has SHINY THINGS!!
>
They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
release a XP version of DirectX 10 for? That would be the only damn 
reason I would get it. Kind of a catch-22. Buy an Xbox 360, which costs 
way more than I want to spend (unless its on a laptop), so I can play 
Halo 2 and 3, or rework an older machine to run Vista, so I can at least 
play 2.... Never mind other things that are coming out as well.

Pain in the fracking ass!
 
-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> And I couldn't get to it.  No way, no how.  So, frustrated, I grabbed a 
> monitor to see what the dumb thing had done.  You know what?  It reverted 
> EVERY SINGLE CHANGE to the user profile I had put in place.  UAC was 
> enabled; Aero was enabled.  VNC wouldn't start; the firewall (which I had 
> disabled) was active.  It was as if I had just completed the "first boot" 
> setup.

You know what?  MS got sick of users (and third-party programmers) not 
liking being told that certain things (like turning off the firewall) 
are dumb ideas and doing them anyways.  So they said heck with it, and 
now you can't "just turn off" things.  You have to do it correctly.

I don't remember where I got this, might've been here, but this entry in 
particular is gold: 
http://shippingseven.blogspot.com/2008/01/big-changes.html

Aero I played with a little for a few days, then switched to classic view.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?

  How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
features with current hardware?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:24:58 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And I couldn't get to it.  No way, no how.  So, frustrated, I grabbed a
>> monitor to see what the dumb thing had done.  You know what?  It
>> reverted EVERY SINGLE CHANGE to the user profile I had put in place. 
>> UAC was enabled; Aero was enabled.  VNC wouldn't start; the firewall
>> (which I had disabled) was active.  It was as if I had just completed
>> the "first boot" setup.
> 
> You know what?  MS got sick of users (and third-party programmers) not
> liking being told that certain things (like turning off the firewall)
> are dumb ideas and doing them anyways.  So they said heck with it, and
> now you can't "just turn off" things.  You have to do it correctly.

The problem is that they left the "just turn off" option in there.  And 
it worked.  Once.  I'll grant them that they didn't ask me a million 
times (like they used to) if I was sure that I wanted to do what I was 
doing.

But silently screwing with settings I put in place doesn't make me happy.

> I don't remember where I got this, might've been here, but this entry in
> particular is gold:
> http://shippingseven.blogspot.com/2008/01/big-changes.html
> 
> Aero I played with a little for a few days, then switched to classic
> view.

Same here.  Even on XP, I couldn't get over the "Fisher-Price" look that 
was default on XP.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:25:54 -0500, Warp wrote:

> And how
> many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
> features with current hardware?

On a so-called "Vista-capable" machine, to boot?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> What about Windows Movie Maker?

That's great for what? Converting your digicam's AVI's for YouTube?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> My vista upgrade to my home computer hasn't been as smooth as the 
>> upgrade adviser has lead me to believe.
> 
>   But why did you "upgrade"? Wasn't XP working for you for some reason?
> Was there something in Vista which you really needed and which isn't
> available for XP? Peer pressure? Hype?
> 

DirectX 10, Some major improvements in the shell UI. Been using machines 
at work that have it. I liked it, so I upgraded. It wasn't a necessary 
upgrade, per se... But it was probably one of the more painful ones.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
>> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
> 
>   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
> many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
> features with current hardware?)
> 

Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that 
"Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(

So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine, 
still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it 
either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.

So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.

Post a reply to this message

In article <47d8207c$1@news.povray.org>, mra### [at] hotmailcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> >> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
> >> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
> > 
> >   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
> > many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extr
a
> > features with current hardware?)
> > 
> 
> Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that 
> "Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(
> 
> So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine, 
> still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it 
> either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.
> 
> So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.
> 
Doesn't run slow on ours. But its buggier than hell, including one 
unpatched one, which causes corruption of a stupid logbook file. I 
finally set up a simple batch file to run every time my fathers machine 
started, to delete the file, so the game would work if he had to reboot 
it (and often it would hang the game so bad you did).

Now, Halo 2, as far as I know, won't run without Vista. Same for some 
other games, or at least their box says so. No idea if this is true or 
not though. Seriously, I don't think the problem is DirectX 10, but 
rather Vista itself. Adding a bit better features and things like god 
lights **shouldn't** slow the frame rate down. Running it on an OS that 
can't run non-3D software without it running slower than hell... That 
*would* probably make 3D run like tree sap in winter.

But, it just pisses me off that I can't even buy the newest games 
without either shelling out for a console, or buying and OS that won't 
run them right anyway.

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>>> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't
>>> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
>> 
>>   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
>> many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
>> features with current hardware?)
>> 
> 
> Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that
> "Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(
> 
> So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine,
> still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it
> either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.
> 
> So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.

That's true - with XP SP2 on a 3.4 gHz machine with PCI-EX 7950 Nvidia card
(ok, ok, that's a bit dated already, I know!) I rarely get more than 6 FPS
on the ground at an airport. At altitude I can make about 22 on my rig in
FSX. That's with most options on - dropping options doesn't seem to help
much either. Going to 3x on antialiasing makes it unsimmable - 1 or 2 FPS.
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message