Re: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)

[Bill Davis] I'll try to explain it in yet another lousy metaphor.

Sigh,

OK Bill I agree with you. It is a lousy metaphor because I think you constantly make the mistake of assuming the magnetic timeline FCPX paradigm is the future and therefore all we have to do is realise the genius and leave behind our last century ways of thinking. I, like many, have tried to argue that it isn't automatically a step forward. Indeed I see it in most ways as a step backward and I have tried to illustrate how older systems like Fairlight have evolved into something sleek and efficient, whilst solving the same problem. If the developers at Apple want to try and reinvent the wheel in isolation from the history of wheel making, then don't expect wheel X1.0.3 to be a smooth ride.

I have constantly called on people to question the methodology of magnetic timeline because I think there is no reason not to have borrowed the superior collective wisdom from years of DAW development. That there is a potentially better and more powerful way to solve a simple clip overwrite function without throwing away a tried and proven system like tracks should be discussed without your usual knee jerk reaction that we just have to lift the veil from our tired old eyes or some rant about who or what is a 'professional'.

I am really glad it works for you Bill but you have so far failed to convince me that FCPX has done something clever or revolutionary. So let us discuss and argue without feeling a pathological need to rush to the defence of FCPX every time we ask can it be better.