Any news on Video Studio 11?

Moderator: Ken Berry

sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

etech6355
Posts: 2121
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:24 am
Location: US

Post by etech6355 »

I will be building a new Vista box and use it for video as well as the new Photoshop and a host of other new programs later this summer. I was just hoping I could hold off a bit longer.
I posted this because if someone isn't running the right processor performance differences between Vista versus XP would be nil.
All this becomes rather expensive.
railroadguy

Post by railroadguy »

etech6355 wrote: I posted this because if someone isn't running the right processor performance differences between Vista versus XP would be nil.
All this becomes rather expensive.
Correct, which is why trying a dual boot 2000/Vista on what I have now makes no sense. Yes, I could run out and buy XP and dual boot that, but that makes even less sense by only putting off the inevitable of having to run Vista down the line.
sjj1805
Posts: 14383
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:20 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Equium P200-178
processor: Intel Pentium Dual-Core Processor T2080
ram: 2 GB
Video Card: Intel 945 Express
sound_card: Intel GMA 950
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1160 GB
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by sjj1805 »

You're missing the point about dual boot.
Yes, eventually we will all have to upgrade to Vista or whatever comes after it (Vienna). If your new computer is powerful enough to run Vista then it will be powerful enough to run Windows 98 / ME / 2000 / XP / Linux and a dozen other operating systems.

I am not talking about power. I am talking about the vast amount of software you have amassed over the years and possibly spent hundreds even thousands of pounds (or dollars etc). Far more than the cost of whichever operating system you now choose to use.

For the glory of using the latest Microsoft Operating system are you now going to simply consign all those expensive programs to the dustbin.

What I am suggesting to you is a means to enable you to enjoy the benefits of the new Operating system and still be able to use your existing (expensive) software.

In fact if you already have a fully working windows 2000 system you could clone that hard drive in the same manner you would if you were simply upgrading the hard drive to a larger one. Pop that into the new machine as the second hard drive and boot from that. It will nag you for the relevant drivers because the new computer will have different graphics cards, network adapters and so on. You may have to do a 'repair installation' to get it to work - but it can be done.
railroadguy

Post by railroadguy »

sjj1805 wrote: In fact if you already have a fully working windows 2000 system you could clone that hard drive in the same manner you would if you were simply upgrading the hard drive to a larger one. Pop that into the new machine as the second hard drive and boot from that. It will nag you for the relevant drivers because the new computer will have different graphics cards, network adapters and so on. You may have to do a 'repair installation' to get it to work - but it can be done.
I do understand and you are correct, however, when I upgraded my mother board it was a mess and I had to reinstall 2000 as the repair would not do it's thing properly.

And lets face it, having two machines, in my case, is not a bad option. If I am using the Vista for graphics and video I can be rendering projects while I continue to do my day job on the other machine.
timiano2

Post by timiano2 »

I must say,

I'm a very happy man. VS11 so far works very well with Vista and MPEG4 from my Casio S770. Case closed!
timiano2

Post by timiano2 »

And, I've also got to add,

It's smoking fast! Really, really impressed thus far.
railroadguy

Post by railroadguy »

timiano2 wrote:And, I've also got to add,

It's smoking fast! Really, really impressed thus far.
Maybe you could fill in your system specs so we can all see what you are smoking... er, what makes your system smoke...
timiano2

Post by timiano2 »

Apologies

I've just updated my profile, but for simplicity:

HP Compaq nc8430 (laptop)
Windows Vista Ultimate
Intel® Core™ Duo processor T2500 2.0 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
100 GB 5400 rpm SATA
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics controller with 256 MB of discrete video memory
Mobile Intel® 945PM Express Chipset
15.4-inch WSXGA+
railroadguy

Post by railroadguy »

timiano2 wrote:Apologies

I've just updated my profile, but for simplicity:

HP Compaq nc8430 (laptop)
Windows Vista Ultimate
Intel® Core™ Duo processor T2500 2.0 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus
2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
100 GB 5400 rpm SATA
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics controller with 256 MB of discrete video memory
Mobile Intel® 945PM Express Chipset
15.4-inch WSXGA+
That is amazing. Let us know how this continues. I had thought about a laptop but did not think the speed of the HD (only 5600) and the architecture of a laptop would be a good mix. Do you also have an external HD? That 100GB must be 25% full just with Vista and it's overhead.
timiano2

Post by timiano2 »

I wouldn't quite say amazing, but yes it isn't a overly specced laptop. The 2GB RAM is fundemental though. I'd suggest at a minimum 1GB is needed, but for power users and serious multi tasking then 2GB is needed.

I can fly between IE (with about 10 tabs open), VS11, Word 2007, Excel 2007, Adobe 8, Outlook 2007 and even CS2.

I do have an external drive, but it is used purely for storage purposes. Vista uses about 15GB, but with all the applications I have installed it has significantly increased the partition size.

Any middle spec PC these days should be able to handle Vista and VS 11, providing the RAM is right. But, I am editing MPEG4, which has a lower bit rate than DV. DV if I remember rightly needs to be able to sustain about 5.4MBps, which almost all laptops should be able handle.
Post Reply