Posted by Specs on 05/11/06 14:02

<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1147351645.711616.50390@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
> > That is absolute nonsense. Maybe your $399 Dell will run Pinnacle
> > Studio but it won't run Avid Xpress Pro HD.
>
> That would depend on the Dell. My PC doesn't even meet the recommended
> specs for Xpress Pro HD, but runs it fine... the only thing it can't
> handle is DVCPRO HD, other HD codecs are no problem. But people with
> faster PCs can't handle DVCPRO HD either.
>
> Avid are extremely anal about their hardware requirements because they
> don't want the support hassles when someone does try to run it on a
> $399 Dell (and, let's face it, who's going to put $1500 piece of
> software on a $399 PC?). That doesn't mean it doesn't work.
>
> Mark
>
No but by the same token, having a qualified system doesn't always help. I
gave up on Avid after a string of hopeless releases. After the introduction
of Avid Xpress Pro (4.0) there was a continual parade of updates that in
some cases made the software more unstable or trashed functions that were
working prior to the update. I had enough around version 4.5.

When I read dilberts like Doc spouting 86% of Hollywood this and TV that I
just have to laugh. That's just another sucker that's bought into the most
expensive and the most closed platform available.

One has to be pragmatic about the software one uses. It has become
acceptable for software companies, particularly Avid in my experience, to
use the early adopters as beta testers. Other companies do it to. Why is
that? Because they can get away with it. Perhaps there weren't all these
doughnuts on newsgroups and fora around the internet steadfastly defending
company A over company B through misplaced brand loyalty or straight
fanboyism, we might all get better products.

For all the good these Avid vs FCP threads do we might as well be arguing
over who has the biggest todger.

[Back to original message]