"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 21:28, dennis@home wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with
only
2GB memory

Why?
Surely you want to read it from a file, process that bit and write it
back.
The disk would be the limiting factor, it certainly can be for video
processing.

I think you just answered your own question... the disk would be a
limiting factor, and massively slower than carrying operations out on the
whole file in ram. Especially if you need several operations in sequence.

That is just cr@p software.
There is seldom any need to apply one operation to a whole video and then
another to a whole video followed by another, etc.
You just apply them all to the stream.