Al Bergstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Yes, the reactivation is a PITA. And it would seem to make sense to be able to code around it, but even that becomes a project that requires a look at cost benefit analysis etc. . Seriously, there may be no one left at Adobe that even knows the code to that original activation scheme. These one off requests rarely find traction inside these large corporations, unless you know someone on the inside. I don’t even know if Adobe monitor this forum anymore.
Best of luck on this! There should be someone out on Ebay that has a copy of it. And that is, if you can get it activated!
Al
-
I wonder if there’s anybody selling a similar setup on Ebay? Or at least a version of the software that might come with an activation code already in it? Unlikely but I’d search for it.
This is really an ongoing problem for all of us. I’m a small businessman myself, so understand your concerns. But putting your business in a place where you rely on out of date and not supported software (think FCP 7 as something far more widespread), leaves you vulnerable to someone somewhere. There are thousands of people using FCP7 still that are only one OS upgrade away from losing it’s functioning ability.
My mother in law wrote an entire series of boating books in the 1990s on software that Adobe obsoleted (Framemaker). By the time I was given the hard drives with the book in 2006 there was no way to upgrade and save the formatted material for future revisions or publication, even on the newer versions of Framemaker! End of the road and the only way forward would have been to rewrite her books on a new package. It wasn’t worth that much to her or me. That decision was likely made by a 30 something Program Manager at Adobe, based on the fact that people were no longer updating from that old version (they likely already had), the Framemaker code was likely really bad from a modern perspective and the cost to Adobe to put a PM, developer, test and marketing team together to push something with such a limited group of users that didn’t make them enough money to recoup costs. That they couldn’t even provide a conversion program to get the formatted book into the newer software really pissed me off. I swore I would never use FrameMaker again, and haven’t.
By not upgrading over the years, you likely helped them make the same decision, to eliminate the activation server. Not sure why they can’t just give you another number that would work, but perhaps there is a technical issue with it (or no one in Adobe even knows anything about how the server worked, or what numbers could be valid choices). But to be clear,your old numbers no longer work (that assumes you saved what numbers were generated back then)?
Good luck on getting it running again. Wish you all the best.
Al
-
Let me do my best to help you. Last items first.
- Acquiring an older version of AE. I would start with eBay. Often they have old versions for sale there.
- I store all my project files in a folder with the project name.
Year-Project Name-Maybe other id dataI copy all needed files into the folder structure. If I need something that is a duplicate elsewhere in my system, I make a copy of the video, and copy it into the folder. It is *much* easier to find everything later!
Once you have it all in there copy that folder to a backup drive. When you reinstall your AE you should be able to go to that folder and pull the whole project up. Try it before destroying your only copy!
Ok. As to Boot Camp vs. Parallels.
I have used both, but only use Parallels now. I would have to say that Parallels is really not designed to be the way to use something as disk heavy and graphics intensive as any of the Adobe suite. I’m sure there are people out their using it for that, but let’s be clear. It puts a level of abstraction (the virtual machine) between your application and the underlying OS. My experience is that it’s prone to problems when you do that. It’s really good for running lightly used apps. Even then, I’ve had problems with specialty apps, ones that need the printer for example, not printing properly on a Virtual Machine (VM) versus a “real” Windows machine. One app I use infrequently is a great Windows app for printing labels on DVDs. It won’t work on Parallels. Just won’t print.Positives: You can run the Mac OS and Windows simultaneously on your Mac.
Negatives: I believe that you cannot boot off a remote drive with Parallels. Have they fixed that yet? Not sure. That means you need to have both OS’s on the main hard drive. That affects performance negatively. However, there is a new product, called Parallels for MacPro that may allow you to have the boot drive on a separate hard drive. That may cost you an expensive upgrade. Please check with them first.
As to Boot Camp, it requires you to dedicate a partition on your Mac hard drive. So you are in essence running both Windows and Mac OS on your primary hard drive, but not both at once. you choose at startup. This means that you have better control over graphics and other drivers, because your Mac is essentially a Windows machine. When you boot up, you have a choice. Run Mac OS or Windows. Not both at once like Parallels.
Here is the Bootcamp FAQ
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201456Caveats: Apple supports BIOS issues and compatibility. I had a lot of blue screens with Boot Camp.
Ultimately, I believe that the best thing to do, if you need Windows for running Windows apps, is to buy a Windows computer that is fully supported by Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. Your next best option is Boot Camp, since that’s almost the same thing, and last is Parallels.
To be clear, for many tasks Parallels is fine. It can run a huge number of Windows apps. Maybe even for your needs Adobe products. The fact that you are trying to run a very old version of adobe products on your Mac, is likely to create problems for you that I can’t anticipate. Compatibility with old versions gets worse and worse with every upgrade of the OS.
Best of luck. Hope this helps.
Al
-
since you haven’t gotten a response yet from any of the other members of the board, I would say that that laptop is probably as good as you’re going to get to do 4k in today’s market. 4 GB video card probably will drive it just fine, but even with my 2 GB video card and only a single camera I found that 4K seems to stutter no matter what type of external drive I’m using. I think that a Thunderbolt base drive maybe raid zero for actually doing the editing might be the best option and using the 7200 RPM drive you mention as a non primary storage device. it’s my opinion that we really need a new generation of processors to get us over the current Intel i7s. it seems like Moore’s law has finally reached its limits
Al
-
Derek, Alex has a lot of good points to consider. I used Vegas extensively for documentary and other small projects from 2010 to about 2014. I went through a variety of upgrades to it. I used it on a beefy Windows 7 64 bit machine with the latest state of the art graphics cards. I also use Lightroom a lot, and Premiere a little. Some After Effects and some third party video fx. I’m a one many shop, who hires others when necessary.
I liked using Vegas Pro. It was very intuitive, and was easy to learn.
The only thing I would add to what Alex said is that my biggest benefit from switching has been that I have gained stability. If you look back at my posts during those years in the Vegas group, I was always experiencing crashes. Sometimes multiple times an hour. This was with simple 1 to 4 camera timelines. I am extremely technical with over 25 years in the computer industry. I’ve been a beta tester on numerous product launches. I know my way around issues and have solved many very tricky problems. I think that Vegas has had a problem with their product testing for years. Whether that’s a lack of resources, or management decisions is hard to know. I hope that spinning them off as they have done will help that problem not compound it. Time will tell.
I did testing when I switched, with the exact same footage, computer, hard drives and timelines. What I found was that almost from the beginning, my stability problems vanished with Premiere. Have I ever had a crash with Pr? Yes. But it’s so infrequent that I don’t even think about it anymore. Since then I’ve also had the ability to decide to move to the Mac from Windows, having disliked Windows 10. But in the future I am open to switching back. All these are just tools for filmmakers and photographers. I am not a fanboy of anything other than elegant tools.
Adobe has to survive by doing the work to make sure that their product is stable, which is fundamental to professional work. They cater specifically to the highest level of professionals, so I, a small time shop, don’t need to think about it much. They have obviously dedicated huge resources to it over the years, as their problems are no where near as bad as the competition. While Vegas has had John R. and Douglas helping on their community boards, I don’t feel that they have been able to get to the folks who have built and funded the product to get it stable. I appreciated their efforts at helping the community. Also, I did not want to go to FCPX, because Apple’s unilateral, overnight decision to abandon it’s entire base for upgrades, was as unprofessional a move as I’ve ever witnessed in the business. During my time with Vegas I also bought FCP 7 and an iMac and spent about 6 months working with it. It was a good product for it’s time. I did my first doc on Vegas Pro but moved to FCP7 halfway through to get stability. I went back to Vegas for a while afterwards because of it’s simplicity.
As for Apple, they really don’t need FCP to make their money, they could dump it tomorrow. But Adobe needs their professional customers for everything they have built. It’s about focus. Adobe obviously lives it. The only thing I don’t like about Adobe is it’s subscription service. But it has stabilized their revenue stream, so that’s ultimately good for us, I hope.
Just to be clear, I have never worked for Adobe, but have owned their stock.
Good luck with your decision.
Al
-
thanks guys I found a house in the Chicagoland area, the claims if they do this fairly frequently , at a reasonable price . I am a bit concerned whether or not there may be mold on the tapes they probably been sitting unplayed for many years .
Al
-
Sorry Terry, I just relooked at the tapes, they are 3/4″ Umatics. I had forgotten all about that format.
Al
-
I own the DR 60 myself and think it’s a good choice for that price range. It goes through batteries a bit more than the zoom does, but it has a bit better sound quality in my ear then zoom. I would probably have recommended it to you, along with the zoom H5.
Al
-
Depends on their budget. give them three choices. I would point out that those old drives will soon be unuseable (due to technology change) or dead. So keeping them around is minimalistic and suboptimal.
moving to large bare drives is another minimalistic step. no guarantee of footage being there if needed. next step is RAID which is where I’m at. better than bare but still needing backup, as theft , weather or fire can destroy them.
I bought 8TB RAID 1 for much of my legacy footage ( I’ve already lost some personal work I needed when a 2TB RAID 5 failed.) so it isn’t foolproof. I backup to bare and offsite the bare drives to my bank’s safe deposit box.
LTO would be best, obviously. good luck!
Al
-
Tom, can you post some bits of your footage? I assume, given your background and your post, that yes, you probably are right in your assumptions. I have worked with Sony, Canon XF305, 105 and others, and can tell you that the 100 is not the best choice for interior low light situations. It is very grainy when adding gain. I have shot good footage with it, but it’s not a camera I would grab without useing in advance. It is very good at run and gun with lots of light.
Were you shooting 60i by some chance?
Yes, this is a prosumer camera. The xf300/305 was more targeted at the Sony EX 3/1 when it came out. I still use my 300 and find that it is the best quality image for stage shows in the 1080 world. As long as I have lots of good light. Even it is not a great low light camera, given today’s choices, and the Sony seemed, in the tests I saw some years ago to have a small edge in low light.
Best of luck.
Al