1.0.5 build 4 improvement

[saber]

Well done, DVD2SVCD, the new version, with the posibility to control the priority of the tasks, improved in CCE form a mild 6.250//7.01 to a strong and firm .900 changing the priority to high.
I´m on a PIII 1ghz with 512mb ram.
Tks again, man.

saber

ps:no more cce freezes...

[Jono182]

changing the priority actually increased your speed? crazy... :confused:

you must have had other 'normal' priority programs running in the background taking up some cpu cycles cuz a normal priority program will run just as fast as a high one as long as theres nothing else being processed

[mrbass]

someone posted about it and I thought I'd give it a try. It worked. If you have WinXP (maybe win2000) then bring up task manager and right click on ccstp.exe (sp?) and change the priority. Give it five minutes or so to see if the CCE RT average changes. I has to do with the harddisk get a tad bit more CPU time to read it I believe.

[saber]

Jono182, if you think you can´t get some more cycles from all the tasks you don´t see that the PC is working on, go on and give some prg (task) you are running the "realtime" priority.
Then try to switch tasks, or to do something for all that matters...
And then tell me if changing priority to a task does not have an influence...

[DVDHack]

This is bazaar, didn't I see a posting a llittle while back saying people were getting performance improvements by decreasing priority - at that time the reason was thought to be allocation of CPU to the frameserving process !!

I currently get about .6 with my Pentium III 700MHz processor, 512MB RAM so I suggest that the change in priority has had an effect because other stuff was running on the 1GHz example - I make sure nothing unnecessarily runs on my PC when DVD2SVCD is running. Changing the priority on the process then makes no difference.

[saber]

Off course it does! Don´t forget the processes you see in the task manager are not the only ones the PC is executing.
And before, decreasing the priority of CCE used to increase the speed because then, mpeg2dec and avisynth got more priority. It seems that now they get the priority directly from DVD2SVCD.

[dvd2svcd]

Ok, no reason to go overboard on the issue. The priority settings is something each user can experiment with. Some constallations might give better performance with HIGH some with LOW. For instance, I could imagine that when you got a slow HD it could be a good idea to use Low priority, on the other hand if your HD is fast enough well, then perhaps HIGH would be a good choice or maybe it's the other way around. It doesn't really matter, as I doubt that you'll find any uniformely priority solution.

[Jono182]

Don´t forget the processes you see in the task manager are not the only ones the PC is executing
for those of us blessed with win2k/xp, the processes we see in the task manager are indeed the ONLY ones using cpu cycles. this is very obvious to see as when the 'system idle process' is at 100%, it means there is no other processing going on.

if you think you can´t get some more cycles from all the tasks you don´t see that the PC is working on, go on and give some prg (task) you are running the "realtime" priority. Then try to switch tasks, or to do something for all that matters...
of course, if you set a process to high priority and then attempt to run another process, the one with the high priority will hog the cpu cycles. as u can see from my above post, i said "a normal priority program will run just as fast as a high one as long as theres nothing else being processed", which is absolutely true. u are speaking of an entirely different scenario with more than one process running.

in any event, i do admit that i forgot about the frameserving process which runs along side cce and could make signficant changes in speed if you experiment in the priority, but i do not need computer lessons...my mcse has taught me well enough. thanks for the feature dvd2svcd, ill be sure to play around with it.

-jon

[saber]

Well said DVD2SVCD, and sorry I sounded fatherly Jono182. I´m also running XP, though I don´t feel so blessed... :)
Jono, I would like to keep up with this argument, but no here. Don´t want to bother nobody.
There are other processes, the ones not shown. Like redrawing windows or being aware of mouses, keyboards or other stuff; also dll loaded that are not running all the time. .
Anyway, better any other place.
And I am not trying to teach nobody about nothing. Just arguing for the sake of it and sharing my notes. Don´t want to disqualify nobody, but neither to feel disqualified.