On 13/04/2012 13:09, dennis@home wrote:


"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.

No, its just a fact of life...

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.

In many cases you won't be able to start to apply one transformation
until you have completed the first. Some of these activities are by
their very nature multiple pass operations. For example, equalising
audio levels or colour balance across an entire segment. You will need a
pass to identify the maxima and minima before you can decide what
scaling to apply.

Many image and audio processing processes are interactive - requiring
manual assessment after each stage to work out what to do next. So in
practice, sequential file processing its not going to happen for
anything other than routine batch adjustments.

So take a big image, load into photoshop, make half a dozen filter
operations on it and save it. Personally I would opt for having enough
ram to hold the image, plus any other channels and history steps
required to do it all in RAM every time, and not want to rely on the
image temporary file paging.

If you can make it work equally fast off disk, then you are obviously
wasted here, I am sure Adobe will pay good money for that capability.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/