[Rick Fetters]

Apple probably considered waiting but obviously thought that waiting another 6mo or a year was just too long, especially when they had the basic core functionality completely finished. FCPX is a GREAT editor for those wanting to step up from iMovie or FCE, huge benefits in performance and features and all for $300. Why preclude all of those potential buyers for the next 6mo-1year while the full pro features are finished (again assuming they will be)?
So they pulled the trigger with an early release.
I don’t think they were prepared for the level or breadth of the hostile reaction to that decision. I bet we will see a clarification of their plans for FCPX very soon.

[Rick Fetters]

I don’t know what the real numbers are, I think the three orders of magnitude difference mentioned in the Twitter post is high but I bet it could be two orders (100x) between the true Pros ~10,000 and the prosumers/amateurs 1 million plus. So why cater to the needs of 1% of your users? We are at the beginning of an explosion in the use of video, whether in smartphones, DSLRs, point and shoots, etc. The market for simple, easy to use, “professional” editing software ala FCE will be huge.
I suspect that FCPX will eventually be a true professional app with all the bells and whistles that pros need. Right now it is more like FCE in abilities, not a true pro app. So why release it now? Because it is perfect timing with the soon to be released Lion to have an advanced amateur editor out that takes full advantage of the new recently released hardware and OS. By Apple not naming FCPX…FCEX, they have announced their intent for it to (eventually/ultimately) be a true pro app. I think they assumed the pros would not want to immediately jump on a brand new app and would want to wait until all the bugs were worked out. By that time (6mo-1year) they would have had a chance to upgrade it to pro specs. I think Apple probably anticipated the adverse reaction to the UI in FCPX, but not the FUD caused by the lack of pro features, or at least the level of hostility. Their MO has always been to hold their cards close to their chest and this has worked well for them. But in this case, I don’t think it was the best strategy. They should at the very least announce a time-line for feature development, assuming they want FCPX to really be a pro tool. With the current @#it-storm I think it forces their hand to be a bit more forthcoming.

[Rick Fetters]

I am looking into external storage as well and would like to know how quiet the various alternatives are. Can someone who uses g-raid, g-drives, or OWC’s drive comment on the fan/operating noise? I have to move the external drives between locations and therefore they are close to the computer and consequently close to my ears so I really prefer quiet drives with quality BB fans and good airflow design.

rick

[Rick Fetters]

Gigabit ethernet is at most 125MB/s, whereas FW800 is 100MB/s.

From my limited research, in actual implementation an use, it appears that the current crop of NAS ethernet HDD systems are maxing out at ~40MB/s. A FW800 Raid or single disk can easily do 75MB/s or twice as fast.

rick

[Rick Fetters]

I looked over the NS4600 literature on their website and couldn’t find any mention of transfer speeds so I called their technical support line. I spoke with human after a relatively short 5 minute wait. He said that is is max 40MB/s read and 30MB/s write for the NS4600. Again, this is pretty slow and not really useful for heavy editing work.

rick

[Rick Fetters]

I have been looking into this as well, here is what I have found so far.

1) gigabit ethernet has a 125MB/s maximum transfer speed
2) FW800 has ~80MB/s transfer speed
3) I researched HDD/Raid enclosures that included a gigabit ethernet port and looked for reviews/test of transfer speeds. The fastest ones I could find that were less than $500 for the enclosure (bare, no drives) didn’t have impressive transfer speeds i.e. 350mb/s max, most in the 275mg/s range (this is only 40MB/s or half of FW800).

I am still doing research and definitely might be missing something. I see it as a reasonably good solution if the speeds matched or bettered FW800, but it isn’t looking promising.

rick

[Rick Fetters]

I mentioned the MXO2mini with the Max option because of the possibility of using my existing Macbook pro laptop with its PCI slot. The function of the the Matrox unit would be for external monitor, input and transcoding/compression acceleration. I thought this might be useful considering the relative lack of power of the laptop and my aging G5. I do not have any experience with this or similar units.

Really, the only difference between the new quad iMac and the Powermac is ….
– upgradeable GPU
– expansion possibilities, i.e. eSATA connection

The pluses of the iMac are…….
– a display that is almost on the same level as a $1,500 30″ACD
– i7 quadcore cpu same as MP
– ATI 4850 GPU
– portable to some extent, in that I could take it with me on car vacations and edit in the field.

I think the MP has a useful life similar to the new iMac with the exception of the upgradeable GPU,
which might give it another year of useful service. But I see the iMac as being an 800-900 computer with a 1100-1200 display that can now be reused with the new port as a standalone display when its usefulness as a primary computer has elapsed. So when thinking in these terms, the MP is 2 to 2.5 times the cost of the iMac. Yet, I’m still thinking about it;)

[Rick Fetters]

I have seriously thought about the Macpro but with my use, (hobby not pro), and not needing “broadcast standard” levels of output, just internet distributed levels; I just can’t seem to justify the cost. The new quad iMac w/i7 is almost as fast as a quad Macpro. The main difference being the capability for expansion, which I know is an important distinction. I think the 70-80MBs of a FW800 should be able to give me three streams of ProRes LT, that is all I will need for the foreseeable future.

thanks for your advice

rick