Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.134.175 ( talk) 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Vegas was first in this, Vegas was first in that, Vegas kicks ass, Vegas is the best, Vegas had this years ago, Vegas is great, Vegas. It's unsurprising that an enthusiast of the subject should want to write about it - this applies to all of Wikipedia - but the articles for some of Sony Vegas's competitors manage to have more of the feeling of encyclopaedia entries. I wonder what Sony will have to change for their next version of Vegas? - 118.71.213.120 ( talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It's not so much biased as written in the language of a sales brochure. Even though it might be true that Vegas is the best editing program available (I have not used Vegas myself), then the page still has the sound of a sales article - even the criticisms turns out to be strong points. The page to me appears as if written by either devoted fans of Vegas or Sony employees themselves. While the overall tone of the article feels positive, the writer does an adequate job of backing up the statements with rationale and facts.( Myscrnnm 05:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) I agree with the first two posts this article seems biased. And what is wrong with praise, as long as it is factual? The whole article reads so glowingly about Vegas that I have a hard time believing it wasn't written by a SONY employee sent on a mission to create this page. Even the criticism section offers praise. The entry steps really close to POV with all the wonderful things to say about the software. Left aligned tends to break the paragraph flow and can lead to indented section headings. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Some of the images work better on the right for multiple screen resolutions. I've added new/better screenshots, as well as a media format table.- Tagliare 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Good work on this. Tagliare 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Additions I also added more critisism of the product. I also added a ton of material into "features", as well as cleaning up the history section. I've organised the article a bit, splitting the material into "history" "features and etc.
#Sony vegas pro serial number 15 description how to
Garglebutt / (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I've made some fairly major changes Īdded some detail to the features, that little info box at the right and also some links to some of the things that needed citations, but I don't know how to make citations!- Tagliare 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Įdit: never mind, I've figured it out (how to make citations)- Tagliare 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I've made (more) major changes I've moved some recent additions around and cleaned them up.
Step 1, lookup Torrent, note that it'll work for free."Many people choose to use illigitimate methods to own Vegas." If it's pirated, then they don't own it, by definition.What about the development costs or costs of Piracy to the company?.It costs $599 and some people don't want to pay that much.The wikipedia entry here practically gives instructions on how to pirate Vegas, as well as arguments to convince folks that this is a fair way to "own" the software. The spin on the Piracy section makes me really want to Pirate this software. This unsigned comment is by Zunaid ( talk I think the title should be changed to something like "Sony Vegas" to be more consistent with the naming convention applied to similar programs such as "Adobe Premiere Pro" and "Pinnacle Studio". 25 A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion.19 Screenshot / Article picture useless.
18 Seems like advertisement not a Encyclopedic article.14 Fair use rationale for Image:Vegaspro8 32BitColorSpace.jpg.13 Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas8-home.jpg.12 Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 SurroundPanner.jpg.11 Fair use rationale for Image:Vegas7 ColorCorrector.jpg.10 Fair use rationale for Image:DVDArchitect4 Full.jpg.
0 kommentar(er)
