Has anyone used VV3 under a RAM drive?

Rahl wrote on 12/28/2001, 10:56 AM

I am considering upgrading my computer's RAM so that I can run Vegas in a RAM drive

(such as described here: http://www.speedcorp.net/guides/ramdrive/).

Using a ram drive should speed up the process, but can it be done error free?

If somebody is currently using Vegas in a RAM drive, is it worth it?

Who wants to be the guinea pig and try it out (I would, but don't have the funds right away to try it)?

Could be an interesting topic if possible.

-André Barriault

Comments

wvg wrote on 12/28/2001, 11:24 AM

I think you would need a very huge RAM drive and thus tons of memory to do any serious rendering.

I hate to be a broken record, by my year long experience with Video Factory and currently with Vegas Video delivers comparatively good rendering times. My experience has been total RAM isn't as important as CPU speed and a high speed disk that isn't fragemented. While it doesn't seem to be a factor under Windows XP, doing testing under Win98SE rendering speeds were somewhat faster IF I shutdown and did a reboot prior to starting any rendering project. Simply shutting down unused applications didn't help as much as a fresh boot, besides that's the best way to max system resources.

jboy wrote on 12/28/2001, 3:01 PM

check out the RAM preview function under VV3.0 to get a taste of what it'll be like. You need about 1 GB for every 5 minutes of video, so if you load a gb of currently cheap RAM onto your computer, you'll have enough in there for about 3 minutes of video, after the OS and applications overhead. It works great..