Papajohn is correct and we've been through this discussion before.
I've run different tests running other processes that slow down the
rendering etc... and they didn't effect the final video but I have also run
the same tests using MP3 audio and saving to DV-AVI and that is when I
experience audio "glitches" others complain about these audio problems all
the time when using DV-AVI but if I limit all other background processes and
simply leave my computer alone I never have this problem.
-Wojo

"Stewart Berman" <sabmsdn@saberman.com> wrote in message
news:qhi6l11esk7f90uaacmgcohbuoq8om1j04@4ax.com...
>I expect it would take longer but if it was really running as a background
>task who cares how long
> it takes?
>
> If the input and the output are on a hard drive why would smaller time
> slices affect the quality?
> Does the rendering process have race conditions that give different
> results depending on the loading
> of the machine?
>
> "Wojo" <[REMOVE]wojos_web@[REMOVE]verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>If you could do this it would significantly add to the rendering time plus
>>potentially cause rendering glitches (especially with the audio portion)
>>-Wojo
>>
>>"Stewart Berman" <sabmsdn@saberman.com> wrote in message
>>news:egigk116dug2pdravdud2dengo5m41mtbv@4ax.com. ..
>>> If it was just CPU heavy it won't be bad -- lower the priority and other
>>> things would run. But it
>>> does worse than that -- it doesn't let go so nothing else gets
>>> dispatched.
>>> (I run Nero on the same
>>> machine and it allows other tasks to get dispatched. You don't even
>>> notice it is running.)
>>>
>>> I am running Windows XP Pro SP2. Isn't there someway to set the cpu
>>> slices so one poorly written
>>> task can't take over the machine?
>>>
>>>
>>> "PapaJohn \(MVP\)" <PapaJohn@CharterMI.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>no, it uses whatever CPU cycles are available...
>>>
>>
>