Today's computers are fast enough that you can probably get by just fine with one huge drive.
But traditionally video editors have used at least two drives -- a C drive for their programs and an additional drive for their project and video files.
There are three main reasons for this:
1) With separate drives, you don't have your video data running around bumping into your virtual memory and paging data. Since they're on two separate drives, the data flows more smoothly. This, as I've said, was more important back in the days when people were running their computers on Pentium 4s.
2) Video files are HUGE! Approximately 13 gigabytes per hour. Plus, as you work with them, you'll need lots of scratch disc and hard drive space. For files this big, you're always better off using a massive drive with lots of free, defragmented space on it.
3) Since your program files are separate from your project and video files, the latter suffer a lot less defragmentation. And that can keep things functioning more smoothly.
As for other hardware and software recommendations for version 8, have a look at my FAQs to the right of this forum.
Thanks Steve! How fast should I be sure to get? Does Windows 7 work well with PRE8? Would using an external drive help? I do have those.
I'd get the fastest computer I could. I have a 2.66 ghz dual core with 4 gig of RAM that runs the program fine but, as I said
in the FAQ I linked you to, you'll need a quad or i7 if you want to edti AVCHD.
Windows 7 32-bit works great with the program -- although Windows 7 64-bit seems to be causing it some grief.
It doesn't matter if your second drive is connected internally or through a USB2. Just be sure to reformat it as NTFS before you try to use it.
Thanks so much! Should new computers have adequate graphics/video cards or should I be sure to check that?
The program is not terribly graphics card intensive. A 128 meg card is more than adequate -- so anything more than a basic Intel Graphics Accelerator will work.
If you're looking for some real world specs, Chuck, over at Muvipix.com, has posted his recommended hardware. It's a very enlightening discussion.
The reason for suggesting multiple internal HDD's, is to split the I/O load. Unfortunately, no one has been able to get different molecules into the same exact place, at the same exact time. What this means is that your single HDD's heads can ONLY be in one place on the platters, at the same time. This creates a bottleneck, when the OS and the program are trying to access necessary data at the same time.
The recommendation for 3x internals takes the normal NLE operations into consideration. The C:\ contains the OS, the program files, and probably the Windows Virtual Memory (Page File). A second HDD contains the Projects and the Scratch Disks used for many operations in the NLE. A third HDD contains all of the media files. A good controller can then access these three physical HDD's at the same time, and, depending on the controller type, buffer, and the pipeline to the CPU, can come very close to processing all data at nearly the same time. With a fast bus, a good controller and a fast CPU, one will never see any lag.
Some feel that improvements can be made, when Audio & Video Assets (media files) are also split, and then an additional HDD is used for Export files.
It's all about how quickly, and fluidly, one wishes to work.Personally, I do not like to have to wait, or pause, and HDD's are cheap. For additional speed, I'll be going with 3 additional RAID 0 arrays for my Video, my Audio and my Export files. This really helps improve things, when one is working with HD material, though I must point out that the I/O sub-system (the HDD's and controller) fall behind the CPU's, when working with AVCHD material, due to its high compression. Other HD media will benefit from a stout I/O.
Now, can one work with one internal HDD? Yes. Can they work with a partitioned HDD? Yes, but things will be slowed even more, and there is nothing to be gained.
< Windows 7 64-bit seems to be causing it some grief.>
What grief is 64 bit causing? Is that grief also happening in PRE8? Windows 7 64 bit does allow the flexibility of increasing RAM to 6 -8 GB in the future if I need it. 32 bit won't allow this, as I understand.
thanks for your help!
It's not so much a matter of 32 bit not allowing more gigabytes. It's because of the mathematics of the maximum number addressable by 32 bit - 2 to the power 32 = 4,294,967,296. Whereas 2 to the power 64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. My maths is a bit rusty, and I'm probably mixing bits and bytes and hexadecimal arithmetic, but the scale of the difference in the two numbers gives you an idea how 64 bit windows can address so much more memory than 32 bit.
As for the W7-64 problems I'm hoping that they are not too horrible as I plan to install my W7-64 soon and hope it doesn't kill PRE7. My W7-64 is the 'Ultimate' edition so I'm optimistic that the worst case scenario is to run it in XP Mode (but just in case I'll set it up to be a dual boot system).
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children