I have been a VS9 user for about a year. Love the software. Works flawlessly on my old windows XP PC. Only complaint was the hours it took to render a 30 minute movie. So yes, I was itching to replace my 4+ year old system. I just purchased a Dell E1700 laptop with the 17¡¨ LCD, T7400 duo core processor, 2g memory, 160g hardrive, 256 ATI Radeon x1400 graphic card, and integrated audio. And yes¡K it has Vista. My purpose of writing here is NOT to ask why VS9.0 or the VS10 trial will not work on this PC with VISTA. I am perfectly happy to wait another month or so for version 11 to be released. But there is one thing that I have experienced that makes me concerned that I may even have problems with V11 or any other version for that matter. Let me explain.
I did install my full version 9 on this system (NTSC). Much to my surprise, things seemed to work, except for the audio. I tried playing an ¡§autosound¡¨ clip as well as simply hitting the play button to preview my work. And no audio. No audio from imported avi files, or a sound track layed down on the timeline. But, when the movie was rendered to say an mpg file, all was there and could be heard when played back through say ms media player outside the VS product. It just seems like VS simply isn¡¦t making connection with the integrated audio on this machine. No error messages. In fact, VS seems perfectly happy and goes through the motions. There simply is no audio coming from those speakers.
So, being somewhat curious, I downloaded the VS10+ trial version. Same thing. No audio when previewing a smartsound clip or previewing the movie.
I have scoured this forum¡¦s messages written over the last month or so since VISTA has been released to see if anyone else had seen a similar problem with the audio. Nothing. Don¡¦t think it has anything to do with dolby codex or the such. Also tried loading the product with quicktime v6 installed thinking that may have something to do with it. No change.
So my concern is that this audio problem may have nothing to do with VS or vista. Maybe it is a configuration problem that will be cured with the Version 11 load. Or maybe it is a problem with this machine. I just have this feeling I haven¡¦t seen the last of this. So, would appreciate hearing any of your thoughts. If anyone has experienced a similar problem and seen it cured with say the version 10+ load coupled with the Vista patch, would love to hear about it. In the end, I will surely replace Vista with XP if I thought it to be the solution to gaining a working VS.
Audio Problem
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi
Just assure you.
As far as I am concerned VS 9 is the most stable package.
VS 8 was a disgrace
VS 10 has the additional technology you would expect, but has some small problems.
If you do not need the extras that VS 10 provide then use VS 9.
As for rendering times, this is related to your pc and not the Video Studio version.
How longs a piece of string.
Render times are very complex and cannot be summed up in one sentence.
As for Vista I cannot really comment, but surly Ulead should fix VS 9 to be supported by Vista????????
Just my thoughts
Trevor
Just assure you.
As far as I am concerned VS 9 is the most stable package.
VS 8 was a disgrace
VS 10 has the additional technology you would expect, but has some small problems.
If you do not need the extras that VS 10 provide then use VS 9.
As for rendering times, this is related to your pc and not the Video Studio version.
How longs a piece of string.
Render times are very complex and cannot be summed up in one sentence.
As for Vista I cannot really comment, but surly Ulead should fix VS 9 to be supported by Vista????????
Just my thoughts
Trevor
-
railroadguy
Why would they go back to old out of revision software and do anything to it? VS9 has been replaced by VS10 and now VS11 is just about ready.trevor andrew wrote: As for Vista I cannot really comment, but surly Ulead should fix VS 9 to be supported by Vista????????
If you HAVE to have Vista then you HAVE to buy or have the latest software revision of any software. Would Adobe go back and fix outdated software to run on Vista? Of course not, why should this be any different?
-
Black Lab
- Posts: 7429
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:11 pm
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- Location: Pottstown, Pennsylvania, USA
I think that's what Trevor's (tongue-in-cheek) point was.
OK, guess not.
OK, guess not.
Last edited by Black Lab on Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff
Dentler's Dog Training, LLC
http://www.dentlersdogtraining.com
http://www.facebook.com/dentlersdogtraining
Dentler's Dog Training, LLC
http://www.dentlersdogtraining.com
http://www.facebook.com/dentlersdogtraining
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi
Ok may be I worded that wrong, Vista should make sure that VS 9 is compatible.
My point was that:- I believe that VS 9 is the best vs version produced by ulead to date.
Trevor
Ok may be I worded that wrong, Vista should make sure that VS 9 is compatible.
If you had to buy the latest of all your software, the cost would be ¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K.If you HAVE to have Vista then you HAVE to buy or have the latest software revision of any software
My point was that:- I believe that VS 9 is the best vs version produced by ulead to date.
Trevor
-
railroadguy
Correct. and that is why many of us who still run Windows 2000 have not updated. If I went to Vista it would cost a small fortune to update much of the software I use.trevor andrew wrote: If you had to buy the latest of all your software, the cost would be ¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K.
Programs for the past 4 years could run on 2000 or XP, but now with Vista, many new programs only work with XP and Vista. I, and many others, can not jump to Vista without starting over.
Hell, Microsoft's own IE7 what will not run on 2000. Now that IS a problem.
-
railroadguy
