"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:9QL5c.14862$P45.2785@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

> David Ruether wrote:

> > "TC" <metrotex30@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:zHJ5c.299862$Po1.82390@twister.tampabay.rr.com...

> >>I'm wondering if the difference in performance is 1) noticable and 2)

> >>worth the added cost for video editing.

> > I doubt that anything over 256 megs is useful with most

> > video editing programs...

> Your statement might be true if you substitute "256 megs" with "1GB".

> First, if you're running Windows XP 256MB is going to be the bare

> minimum you're going to want to have, just for the OS itself.

>

> Once you start running some video editing apps, it's only going to want

> more RAM.

>

> I have a Win2k Pro machine with 512MB. When I am doing any sort of

> video editing work (usually with VirtualDub, frameserving to another

> app; sometimes multiple instances), I often find my commit charge going

> up into the 700 or 800MB range. (System is swapping)

>

> OP: Look at your task manager while you're doing your usual video

> editing routine. If the commit charge is near 1024MB or higher, then

> adding more RAM should help you. Otherwise, it'd probably be a waste

> of money.

>

> -WD

Guess I'm out of date - but anything I use (Premiere 6 is where I stop)

works just fine on 512meg, and I remember the days with earlier systems

when they worked well with 128megs, then *maybe* 256megs - and

all the advice given here that "more is better" when the program wouldn't

use more was useless. My amount may not have been correct, but the

opinion that 2gigs is overkill for most video editors stands...;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com