Vegas Video and Win386.swp

Rednroll wrote on 10/1/2000, 1:17 PM
Well, I just learned a hard lesson on Vegas temporary
files. I thought I was originally doing myself a favor when
I built my own system and made the decision to Partition my
main program Drive into 2 partitions. My program drive is
10gigs and I partitioned it so that Drive C: is just under
650Meg with Drive D: handling the other part of the 10gig.
My reasoning behind this is because I install all my
programs to Drive D: and then Drive C: only contains windows
and the drivers that my programs put there. With this said
after I installed all my software drive C: had about 200Meg
left on it. I then burn a CD image of my Drive C:, in that
case if anything ever goes wrong with my system I just put
that CD image in my CDrom and restore everything back to a
working state in about 10 Minutes. Well I did my first
music production track last night(I usually just do
commercial advertisement which stays under 8 Tracks) using
Acid, the song was approximately 20 Tracks with mabe 10
simultaneous tracks playing back at one time. I opened the
individual tracks in Vegas to do a mix down and alls it did
was spit and sputter at me. I though this was very odd for
20 tracks running on a 700Mhz Athlon,128Meg ram, with a
Seagate SCSI Cheetah Drive, from that is only used for my
audio. I then trimmed all the events so that they would
only play when audio was present, so it should be doing the
Same as Acid had just previously done. 10 Simultaneous
Tracks no plugins added. Still spit and sputter. From what
I figured out is that Vegas uses the WIN386.SWP file when
playing back. The more tracks you have playing the larger
this file becomes. Well this file had gotten over 180Meg in
size and my drive C: was running out of space so Vegas could
not play back. By the way yes, my Temporary audio
folder,Preferred recording and Video folder where not stored
on my drive C:. So now it looks like I will be repartioning
my hard drive and reinstalling all my hardware and software
for the next couple of days, I won't be using partition
magic either, I've had problems with that in the past also.
It just seems really odd that Acid Pro wouldn't have this
same problem. Maybe instead of saying in the manual that
you need at least 40meg of free hard drvie space that, you
need at least a gig on drive C: if you decide on doing any
real work?

Comments

karlc wrote on 10/1/2000, 3:10 PM
How much memory do you have? Did you try increasing PB buffer size in
Vegas?

If you are indeed hitting the Windows swap file that hard when
running Vegas, try pointing your Windows Swap file at the fastest
drive with the most space .... Right Click My
Computer|Properties|Performance Tab|Virtual Memory|Let me specify my
own VM settings and choose the fastest drive with the most space
available.

Also, don't forget to defrag those drives ... even one that is
apparently empty can be in need.

If you've already tried the above, then disregard.

KAC ...
Rednroll wrote on 10/1/2000, 4:04 PM
Thanks Karl, I didn't know you could configure the swap file to
another drive. I will try that then. I did adjust the buffering
control and also defragmented my 18Gig Cheetah(4hour process by
itself). I also found in the manual that Win98 SE is a minimum
requirement for Vegas Video and I'm running just Win98, so I wonder if
that has anything to do with it? I have 128MB PC133 Ram, I wasn't
running any plugins so I figured this might not be a problem.

Appreciate the help.

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>How much memory do you have? Did you try increasing PB buffer size
in
>>Vegas?
>>
>>If you are indeed hitting the Windows swap file that hard when
>>running Vegas, try pointing your Windows Swap file at the fastest
>>drive with the most space .... Right Click My
>>Computer|Properties|Performance Tab|Virtual Memory|Let me specify my
>>own VM settings and choose the fastest drive with the most space
>>available.
>>
>>Also, don't forget to defrag those drives ... even one that is
>>apparently empty can be in need.
>>
>>If you've already tried the above, then disregard.
>>
>>KAC ...
karlc wrote on 10/1/2000, 4:23 PM
That could well be the root of the problem, Brian.

When we first switched from Vegas Pro to Video on the same machine we
had the problems I see others complaining about and blaming on bugs
in the program ... we never did get the problems resolved until we
upgraded operating systems on that machine.

In this day and age the upgrade to ANY audio programs seems to take
more resources than what it replaces and it is not just limited to SF
products. I just upgraded WaveLab from 2 to 3.1 this weekend on one
of my home machines, used primarily to make CD copies of projects for
the various folks involved, and spent the next three hours tweaking
buffers and configurations just to get it to run and burn CD's
again ... this on the same machine WL2 performed flawlessly on
minutes before the upgrade.

KAC ...

Brian Franz wrote:

>>I also found in the manual that Win98 SE is a minimum
>>requirement for Vegas Video and I'm running just Win98, so I wonder
>>if that has anything to do with it?
Rednroll wrote on 10/1/2000, 4:45 PM
Well moving the swap file didn't seem to help, at least "Clean disk"
wasn't coming on anymore, but still stuttering. I adjusted the
playback buffering from .25sec to 1.5seconds, that didn't seem to help
much either. I was wondering I've got vegas setup so there's plugins
on every channel (16 channels in this case) each channel has the vegas
plugins plus a Timeworks Mastering EQ and a Waves De-Esser. I have the
checkbox for all these plugins unchecked, so this should mean that
they're not being used correct? Vegas doesn't still use resources if
the plugin is unchecked does it?
Well I have no idea where to go now. Here's my system if anyone can
help.

AMD Athlon 700Mhz
Asus K7V Motherboard
128MB PC133 RAM
Program Drive=10Gig Seagate 7200RPM EIDE 66
Audio Drive=18Gig Seagate 10K RPM SCSI II
Tekram DC-390F 40MB/Sec SCSI Controller Card with latest driver
2-Echo Gina 20bit Audio Cards v5.02 driver.
Windows 98

I ran Vegas Pro 1.0b before this and ran 32 Track mixes with plugins
and never had this problem. I think my system should be plenty fast
to handle 10 tracks of playback with no plugins. The only thing I
think could be wrong is that I'm using windows 98 instead of Windows
98SE. I had just purchased Windows 2k Pro, but am still waiting on
MOTU to make drivers for their midi interfaces, Don't tell me I have
to purchase Windows98 SE too?

Brian Franz wrote:
>>Thanks Karl, I didn't know you could configure the swap file to
>>another drive. I will try that then. I did adjust the buffering
>>control and also defragmented my 18Gig Cheetah(4hour process by
>>itself). I also found in the manual that Win98 SE is a minimum
>>requirement for Vegas Video and I'm running just Win98, so I wonder
if
>>that has anything to do with it? I have 128MB PC133 Ram, I wasn't
>>running any plugins so I figured this might not be a problem.
>>
>>Appreciate the help.
>>
>>Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>>>How much memory do you have? Did you try increasing PB buffer size
>>in
>>>>Vegas?
>>>>
>>>>If you are indeed hitting the Windows swap file that hard when
>>>>running Vegas, try pointing your Windows Swap file at the fastest
>>>>drive with the most space .... Right Click My
>>>>Computer|Properties|Performance Tab|Virtual Memory|Let me specify
my
>>>>own VM settings and choose the fastest drive with the most space
>>>>available.
>>>>
>>>>Also, don't forget to defrag those drives ... even one that is
>>>>apparently empty can be in need.
>>>>
>>>>If you've already tried the above, then disregard.
>>>>
>>>>KAC ...
karlc wrote on 10/1/2000, 7:09 PM
Except for the OS, those specs should be well within the range to run
VV handily. Might want to try upgrading to SE first as it should be
the cheapest route to go.

My own experience convinced me that VV/VA works best with lots of
memory, a stable operating system, and the fastest disk throughput
possible. You could easily kick up your memory to double what you
have. Is your 18GB Cheetah an Ultra160 model? ... if so, you can
quadruple your theoretical 40MB/sec transfer rate with the Ultra160
SCSI adapter, which wouldn't hurt at all.

A "stable OS" to me starts with a fresh format and install with a
minnimum of ash and trash in the way of software/bells and whistles
to gum up the registry.

Depending on MOTU as you are, your options are limited in your choice
of OS's and your best bet right now appears to be to go with Win98SE
and hope like hell that helps.

MOTU has been dragging their feet for two years that I know about and
still haven't come up with NT/2000 drivers for any of their hardware.
My last conversation with them was so disheartening that I blew off a
hefty investment in 2408 systems and switched to Mixtreme ... so
don't hold your breath waiting for driver relief from those Mac
centric jokers .... too bad to, because their hardware is excellent
gear for the price.

KAC ...


Brian Franz wrote:
>>Well I have no idea where to go now. Here's my system if anyone
can
>>help.
>>
>>AMD Athlon 700Mhz
>>Asus K7V Motherboard
>>128MB PC133 RAM
>>Program Drive=10Gig Seagate 7200RPM EIDE 66
>>Audio Drive=18Gig Seagate 10K RPM SCSI II
>>Tekram DC-390F 40MB/Sec SCSI Controller Card with latest driver
>>2-Echo Gina 20bit Audio Cards v5.02 driver.
>>Windows 98
>>
>>I ran Vegas Pro 1.0b before this and ran 32 Track mixes with plugins
>>and never had this problem. I think my system should be plenty
fast
>>to handle 10 tracks of playback with no plugins. The only thing I
>>think could be wrong is that I'm using windows 98 instead of
Windows
>>98SE.
gmarrero wrote on 10/1/2000, 8:09 PM
Gentlemen: If you monitor your systems while running Vegas 2, you
will see that swapfile and ram usage are not the problem. Demand
usually never exceeds the supply. You will also notice that cpu
usage/demand go up astronomically, and those times when it hits 100%,
the system will sputter. Resize a window during playback and see for
yourself.

Again, realize what you are writing:

>>>>I ran Vegas Pro 1.0b before this and ran 32 Track mixes with
plugins
>>>>and never had this problem. I think my system should be plenty
>>fast
>>>>to handle 10 tracks of playback with no plugins.

The problem lies with VA/VV2.A - not your systems. I also
experienced similar problems and ended up going back to Vegas Pro 1b.

Another thing to remember: SF claims to optimize its programs for
plain jane, off the shelf windows installs. You shouldn't have to
perform any santeria rituals in order to get the programs to work
properly, if at all...

Best Wishes,
George

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Except for the OS, those specs should be well within the range to
run
>>VV handily. Might want to try upgrading to SE first as it should be
>>the cheapest route to go.
>>
>>My own experience convinced me that VV/VA works best with lots of
>>memory, a stable operating system, and the fastest disk throughput
>>possible. You could easily kick up your memory to double what you
>>have. Is your 18GB Cheetah an Ultra160 model? ... if so, you can
>>quadruple your theoretical 40MB/sec transfer rate with the Ultra160
>>SCSI adapter, which wouldn't hurt at all.
>>
>>A "stable OS" to me starts with a fresh format and install with a
>>minnimum of ash and trash in the way of software/bells and whistles
>>to gum up the registry.
>>
>>Depending on MOTU as you are, your options are limited in your
choice
>>of OS's and your best bet right now appears to be to go with
Win98SE
>>and hope like hell that helps.
>>
>>MOTU has been dragging their feet for two years that I know about
and
>>still haven't come up with NT/2000 drivers for any of their
hardware.
>>My last conversation with them was so disheartening that I blew off
a
>>hefty investment in 2408 systems and switched to Mixtreme ... so
>>don't hold your breath waiting for driver relief from those Mac
>>centric jokers .... too bad to, because their hardware is excellent
>>gear for the price.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>Well I have no idea where to go now. Here's my system if anyone
>>can
>>>>help.
>>>>
>>>>AMD Athlon 700Mhz
>>>>Asus K7V Motherboard
>>>>128MB PC133 RAM
>>>>Program Drive=10Gig Seagate 7200RPM EIDE 66
>>>>Audio Drive=18Gig Seagate 10K RPM SCSI II
>>>>Tekram DC-390F 40MB/Sec SCSI Controller Card with latest driver
>>>>2-Echo Gina 20bit Audio Cards v5.02 driver.
>>>>Windows 98
>>>>
>>>>I ran Vegas Pro 1.0b before this and ran 32 Track mixes with
plugins
>>>>and never had this problem. I think my system should be plenty
>>fast
>>>>to handle 10 tracks of playback with no plugins. The only thing
I
>>>>think could be wrong is that I'm using windows 98 instead of
>>Windows
>>>>98SE.
karlc wrote on 10/1/2000, 8:34 PM
A few weeks back I would have had to agree with you, George ...
except for the fact that we have been running an extremely stable,
Vegas Video 2.0a installation with NO hitches and glitches, no
stuttering or gapping, for the past six weeks .... so, at least in
our case, the difference WAS the "system", NOT the software.

Check out my previous posts about six weeks back (#3009 and forward)
on this subject if you want to see what it took to get the deed done
in the way of "systems" for what we do with the software.

Also, putting a paging file on the fastest drive with the most free
space is recommended practice for ANY computer system, regardless of
OS ... and VV software, if and when it pages to disk, is certainly no
exception.

KAC ...


George wrote:


>>The problem lies with VA/VV2.A - not your systems. I also
>>experienced similar problems and ended up going back to Vegas Pro
1b.
>>
>>Another thing to remember: SF claims to optimize its programs for
>>plain jane, off the shelf windows installs. You shouldn't have to
>>perform any santeria rituals in order to get the programs to work
>>properly, if at all...
>>
>>Best Wishes,
>>George
Rednroll wrote on 10/1/2000, 8:56 PM
Hey guys luckily I didn't have any sessions until later on in the
evening and I had time to fool around with it and found the problem.
It was my FX plugins. Initially when I installed Vegas Video I
created a Default startup Desk which consisted of 32 Tracks with a
Timeworks EQ and a Waves De-esser in every Channel. I took the check
box off the plugins thinking that when ever I needed an EQ or De-esser
during a mix I would just have to put a check in the check box,
instead of going through the process of adding a plugin. Well even
though the plugins weren't doing anything I guess this setup was still
eating up all my resources. This was why my swap file was getting so
large, because the plugins were eating up all my memory even though
they weren't doing any processing. So I wonder what that check box is
for then, It's really not a bybass switch is it? Well there's another
thing that I hope will be changed somehow in an upgrade. I guess
that's just what I get for looking ahead and trying to be an efficient
engineer. I guess I have to do the 3 step process of adding a plugin
to a channel rather than just having it sit there and turn it on when
I need it.

Thanks for the help
Brian Franz

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>I would have to agree with you, George ... except for the fact that
>>we have been running an extremely stable, Vegas Video 2.0a
>>installation with NO hitches and glitches, no stuttering or gapping,
>>for the past six weeks .... so, at least in our case, the difference
>>WAS the "system", NOT the software.
>>
>>Check out my previous posts about six weeks back (#3009 and forward)
>>on this subject if you want to see what it took to get the deed done
>>in the way of "systems".
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem lies with VA/VV2.A - not your systems. I also
>>>>experienced similar problems and ended up going back to Vegas Pro
>>1b.
>>>>
>>>>Another thing to remember: SF claims to optimize its programs for
>>>>plain jane, off the shelf windows installs. You shouldn't have to
>>>>perform any santeria rituals in order to get the programs to work
>>>>properly, if at all...
>>>>
>>>>Best Wishes,
>>>>George
>>
karlc wrote on 10/1/2000, 9:07 PM
Great! Now, doesn't it make you wonder how it would run if you
met "minnnimum requirements" with regard to the OS?

Then again, if it ain't broke ... :)

KAC ...

Brian Franz wrote:
>>Hey guys luckily I didn't have any sessions until later on in the
>>evening and I had time to fool around with it and found the
problem.
>>It was my FX plugins.
Rednroll wrote on 10/1/2000, 10:37 PM
Yeah...I just picked up a copy of Windows98 SE...I'll try my luck
installing that tomorrow.

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Great! Now, doesn't it make you wonder how it would run if you
>>met "minnnimum requirements" with regard to the OS?
>>
>>Then again, if it ain't broke ... :)
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>Brian Franz wrote:
>>>>Hey guys luckily I didn't have any sessions until later on in the
>>>>evening and I had time to fool around with it and found the
>>problem.
>>>>It was my FX plugins.
gmarrero wrote on 10/2/2000, 7:37 AM
Karl, I do agree with you about putting the swapfile on the fastest
drive and defragging for best performance. This is good universal
advice for all windows users. (Note to Microsoft: You should do this
automatically during install) I also believe that dx plugins are part
of the overall resource problem. I guess that resources are allocated
for the plugin, even if the plugin is not active.
But - and there's always one.......humor me by verifying cpu demand
I bet you this number is the one that pushes into the red, and not
the memory/swapfile usage.

see ya
George

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>A few weeks back I would have had to agree with you, George ...
>>except for the fact that we have been running an extremely stable,
>>Vegas Video 2.0a installation with NO hitches and glitches, no
>>stuttering or gapping, for the past six weeks .... so, at least in
>>our case, the difference WAS the "system", NOT the software.
>>
>>Check out my previous posts about six weeks back (#3009 and
forward)
>>on this subject if you want to see what it took to get the deed
done
>>in the way of "systems" for what we do with the software.
>>
>>Also, putting a paging file on the fastest drive with the most free
>>space is recommended practice for ANY computer system, regardless
of
>>OS ... and VV software, if and when it pages to disk, is certainly
no
>>exception.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The problem lies with VA/VV2.A - not your systems. I also
>>>>experienced similar problems and ended up going back to Vegas Pro
>>1b.
>>>>
>>>>Another thing to remember: SF claims to optimize its programs for
>>>>plain jane, off the shelf windows installs. You shouldn't have to
>>>>perform any santeria rituals in order to get the programs to work
>>>>properly, if at all...
>>>>
>>>>Best Wishes,
>>>>George
>>
karlc wrote on 10/2/2000, 8:15 AM
That's exactly my point about the possibility of many of these
problems being "system" related, George.

Peak load on the processor is one of the biggest factors
effecting 'stability' on any system .... that is why we went with two
of the damn things. :)

Throw enough resources at VV and the stability problems, for the most
part, go away.

KAC ...

George wrote:

>>But - and there's always one.......humor me by verifying cpu demand
>>I bet you this number is the one that pushes into the red, and not
>>the memory/swapfile usage.
gmarrero wrote on 10/2/2000, 2:01 PM
I'm still waiting for Delta, oops, M-Audio to come up with a driver
with multi-cpu support, then I will go that way for sure.
George

Karl Caillouet wrote:

>>Peak load on the processor is one of the biggest factors
>>effecting 'stability' on any system .... that is why we went with
two
>>of the damn things. :)
>>
>>Throw enough resources at VV and the stability problems, for the
most
>>part, go away.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>>>But - and there's always one.......humor me by verifying cpu
demand
>>>>I bet you this number is the one that pushes into the red, and
not
>>>>the memory/swapfile usage.
JoeD wrote on 10/2/2000, 2:25 PM
As for these problems..

It's not just VVideo where this is happening .....these problems are
also seen in VA2.0.

It's not your defragging, it's not the OS....it's not any of that
bullshit.

The newer programs (above Vegas 1.0b) ARE BUGGED OUT....PLAIN AND
SIMPLE. It's obvious when A/B ing Vegas 1.0b with VVideo and VA 2.0.

Where are the damn updates for these (especially Vegas Audio)?

This is not tolerable anymore....this is pathetic.

Joe

gmarrero wrote on 10/2/2000, 3:31 PM
VA is a subset of VV - same program with multiple video tracks
disabled. And yes Joe, we know all too well of the 2.0 bugs. I too
did the A/B thing over a month ago and SF didn't even bother to
respond. SF is well aware of the problems, but probably feel that
responding to this forum (or any forum) is not very high on their
lists of things to do....tisk tisk

Now, being in service myself (and successful for last 20 years) I
must say that SF is horrible when it comes to PR.

Something that I learned many years ago:
Not only do you have to fix the product, but you must also fix the
customer.

You (SF) have pissed off and turned away many people by your lack of
action or concern. Originally, your product sold itself because of
its quality and/or features, but that was then. Now with greater
competition from other companies, you have a bug-riddened product and
no PR. If you want loyalty, then you must earn it, because I just
feel used and since I'm not financially well off, I'll have to think
twice and then again about investing in anymore products from SF.

Gentlemen: Shit happens, bugs happen. OK? I'm cool with that. I'm not
cool about your arrogant stance or attitude. I would be doing some
serious ass-kissing right about now and asking for forgiveness from
the people that you inconvenienced by releasing software that is not
ready for mass-distribution.

I would like to hear from a suit (an exempt employee that wears a
tie) and not some poor tech support schmo that can't really tell it
like it is for fear of his/her job.

George
A Shareholder
& registered user
___________________________________________________________________
Joe Doria wrote:
>>As for these problems..
>>
>>It's not just VVideo where this is happening .....these problems
are
>>also seen in VA2.0.
>>
>>It's not your defragging, it's not the OS....it's not any of that
>>bullshit.
>>
>>The newer programs (above Vegas 1.0b) ARE BUGGED OUT....PLAIN AND
>>SIMPLE. It's obvious when A/B ing Vegas 1.0b with VVideo and VA
2.0.
>>
>>Where are the damn updates for these (especially Vegas Audio)?
>>
>>This is not tolerable anymore....this is pathetic.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>