On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:58:32 -0700, newvideo@amug.org (Bill Davis) wrote:

[...]
>No matter how many catchy phrases you "soak" your argument in, it's
>hollow. The ONLY thing clients pay for are successful solutions to their
>challenges. Whether that SOLUTION takes 10 minutes to render - or
>overnight - is totally and completely irrelavent to the client.
>Ignore that at your peril.

Well, of course! ;-)
But you are changing the nature of the discussion here in mid
stream to present a political solution to a technical question...! ;-)
Simply put, the discussion was about why one would put up
with an editor that places major limitations on the flow
of editing operations; it was not about producer-client relations...
To switch that discussion (as you have) begins to sound
like "Mac-religion", in which the most egregious faults
are somehow found "OK", and maybe even, if one stretches
a few points a LOT, turned to be seen as advantages!
This is silly - the bottom line is that a slow-rendering
editor is less useful than a faster-rendering editor,
all else being equal (people devote effort and money
improving the speed of their computers for one purpose:
improving rendering speed - so, why would anyone then
accept a major hit in performance by switching to FCP?).
This group is about desktop video production, and the
discussion of the relative merits of the tools related
to that is entirely appropriate. You may dismiss
the importance of render speed in your work, or claim
that there are easy "preventives" for avoiding the need
to render, or even claim that long render times are
even advantageous (WOW!!! ;-), but I think most editors,
given the choice, would choose the faster-rendering
editing system, all else being roughly equal...