OK, I'm building a Win XP Workstation for Video/Audio production work.
I'm planning on a 4 disk RAID setup but was wondering what would have
the best performance. I'm not too worried about capacity or redundancy
(so long as it's nominal).

I've narrowed down my choices...

a). Set up all 4 disks as RAID 10 (faster than R5 for writing but
slower for reading)
b). Have system/apps on a RAID 1 pair and data on another RAID 1 pair
c). RAID 5 all of them
d). RAID 5 3 of them and use the remaining drive for
temp/pagefiles/etc.
e). Any other choices?

I suppose my real question is, would the fact that system/apps are on a
completely different set of drives and therefore be accessed completely
separately to the data be better than if RAID 5 or 10 were to try to
access/read/write to all four drives simultaneously? My hunch is that
seek times would be reduced but I'm unsure if it would offset actual
read/write times enough to be beneficial.
I'm also unsure whether I need faster reading R5 or writing R10 for
Video production work.

If I'm going to use a) or c) what's the best method of partitioning the
drives?
Previously, for performance I've always kept system/apps, pagefile/temp
and data on separate disks. If I'm going to have it all on one array,
what's the best way to arrange things?

a) system/apps/temp/pagefile/data all in one partition
b) have system, apps. temp&pagefile and data all on separate partitions
c) keep system/apps together and temp&pagefile/data together
d) any other combination?

Also, if the pagefile is to be on a separate partition, is it better to
have it..

a) at the beginning of the drive
b) between system and application
c) between system/apps and data

Anyone know of any good resources to look at? I can't seem to find
anything conclusive or authorative on the matter.