RAM capture

[Aspen]

Is there any capture programs that utilize a large amount of RAM to compensate for slower disk access when capturing? I've had to purchase 1GB of memory for a different application and I was wondering if any capture program utilizes a large memory buffer to help reduce or eliminate dropped frames?

Aspen

[Fred H]

Can Windows 98 or 98SE handle more than 128 Mb RAM without slowing down the system?
I've seen somewhere, sometimes that Windows 95-98 can't do that. Also there is a difference bw the Intel and AMD CPU-s to handle more RAM. Maybe I am wrong?

[Technoid]

When are that old ideas about the "Mystical" 64 or 128 barier in W9x going to die!

Memory size is hardware dependant NOT software dependant!

Windows 95 first release could use 4 terrabyte memmory!

The Intel TX chipset coulden't cach more than 64 MB!

On newer chipsets like intel BX,810,815,820,840 or VIA chipsets it doesent exist!

Period!


------------------
INTEL PIII550 MSI 6163
G400Mill 32MB SGRAM + RRG
SBlive
256 MB RAM CAS2
43GB HDD Space!(Actual 40GB) (13+30 Quantum drives)
Pioneer 104S DVD 10x CD 40x SLOT IN
SONY CRX100E 4/2/24 CDRW

[Aspen]

So, are there any capture programs that can utilize additional memory? Or do they all already do that?

[DrMordrid]

Microsofts VidCap can capture to memory, for what that's worth. It's part of the On-Demand Producer package:

http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/win...nd/default.asp

Dr. Mordrid

[Pertti]

Technoid,

The HX can also cache more than 64MB ;-)

[Mark F]

And if anyone wants an all English site with the above info/program use:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/win...nd/default.asp

Mark F.



------------------
OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a DVD...
and burped out a movie

[Michel Carleer]

Technoid,
It is not the fact that it is possible to go over 128 or whatever mem size. It is that when adding memory, you will see an increase in the PC speed because of less and less use of the virtual memeory. But when getting somewhere between 128 and 256 MB, the speed starts to decrease. Because of the overhead due to the memory management??
Michka

[wkulecz]

I've got to agree with Technoid here.

The other 128 and 256MB "speed decreases" are once again cost cutting on the motherboard to save a couple of bucks worth of tag RAM. Various ALI chipsets, for example, have these depending on revision level. Very confusing as the makers don't readily disclose the fact that "supports XXX MB RAM" doesn't always mean that all XXX MB is cachable.

On an old P-II 300 (no external cache for the MB/chipset makers to skimp on!) I can assure you that the speed up in going from 256MB to 512MB RAM in photoshop is very noticable and windows 98 had no limitations I could find in its memory management.

Capturing to RAM is always missing cache so the "lameness" of cachable RAM limitations on various chipsets will have little real effect here.

The slowest RAM subsystem should have no trouble keeping up with the 27MB/sec of 640x480 RGB video, but then you'd fill up your 1 GB RAM way too quickly to do much good (about 40 seconds!)

--wally.