Faster than Word!

This is the first time I have ever purchased an installed iWork/Pages... This program rocks! It opens and converts Word files FASTER than Word opening it's own documents... I can finally say bye bye to ALL my Microsoft software... Thanks Apple!

Hi Ryan 3687,
Welcome to Pages '09 discussions.
The Pages '09 team would very much enjoy hearing you positive comments. With Pages open click Pages > Provide Pages Feedback. Your comments goes directly to them.
The also take helpful criticism as well.
These Discussions are enduser helping enduser, not Apple employees answering questions. Apple provides these discussion forums for endusers however, Apple neither monitors nor engages in discussions. Enduser such as yourself when they have extra time answer questions.
Again, welcome to Pages Discussions, have fun here.
Cordially,
RicD

Similar Messages

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?: When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

Thanks Erik,
If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
As an aside....
I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...) were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
These are the specs for my computer...
ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
Any help would be much apreciated.
Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
*EDIT*
OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
*EDIT*
OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

Typing faster than system can keep up in mountain lion

Has anyone noticed that you can type faster than the system can keep up with since upgrading to OSX Mountain Lion? I am mainly seeing this issue in text boxes on websites but sometimes will happen when using apps like Notes, Word, or Pages.

It may just be a problem with the OS. I would not worry about it though. Apple will have an update or a patch soon. I just recommend that you watch for any updates from apple.
I hope that helps.

NVidia GTX 780 Ti faster than GTX Titan

Today the GTX 780 Ti GPU is available starting at $699 and it is faster than the $1000 GTX Titan. We do not have any test results but all specifications point to it being faster. It has faster memory and more CUDA cores. The only difference is that the GTX Titan has 6 GB of video RAM while the GTX 780 Ti has 3 GB. Unless the media you are editing is higher than 4K, 3 GB of video RAM should be enough (see Harms data).
Will someone please move this to the hardware forum, I must have been dozing off Bill

The 3770k will be a great match for a single 780ti.
Maybe on an absolute scale. But in my previous post in this thread I compared to the PPBM6 results Harm's Monster achieved. (And granted, Harm's Monster was equipped with a GTX 680 when he tested it.) Thus, if my i7-3770K was 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster in the H.264 Blu-ray portion of the PPBM6 test suite (259 seconds versus 115 seconds), then the MPEG-2 DVD result should also be about 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster (in other words, a result of about 52 seconds compared to the 23-second result of Harm's Monster). However, since Harm's Monster used a GTX 680 to achieve those results at the time he tested it, it follows that the recommended GPU for my system to achieve that particular balance would have been a plain, non-Boost GTX 650 Ti.
That said, I tested a 2GB GTX 660 from eVGA (a GTX 660 SC) in both my auxiliary i5-2400 system and my main i7-3770K system, and while I do agree that the GTX 660 was a bit overkill with an i5 with only 16GB of RAM {its MPEG-2 DVD result of 40 seconds was 2 seconds slower than the same card did in my main rig although I cannot confirm whether the slower result was CPU-limited or RAM-limited (UPDATE: I investigated further, and the 2-second slower result was due to the auxiliary system's PCI-e x16 slot running at only PCI-e 2.0 instead of PCI-e 3.0 bandwidth)}, the GTX 660 would be a good match for an i7-3770K with a moderately overclocked CPU, 32GB of RAM and a two-disk RAID 0 with the latest-generation 7200 RPM disks (such as the 1TB to 3TB models in the Seagate 7200.14 line). In fact, the GTX 660 scored the same (38 seconds) as my old GTX 560 Ti 448 (which should really have been named a GTX 570 LE instead of its released name) in the MPEG-2 DVD portion of the PPBM6 test suite.
Message was edited by: RjL190365

The logic in LEOPARD being faster than TIGER?

I'm still trying to grasp this concept. I have NEVER heard of an upgrade that goes faster than a previous version...
DISK SPACE
If I upgrade my MacBook from Tiger to Leopard using the "archive and install feature" on the disk, am I adding more system files to my existing ones? Or does the installation process of LEOPARD somehow remove more files than it installs?
In my world, less disk space = slower computer. Maybe there's a little logic in that.
Message was edited by: You Got Pwnd

You Got Pwnd,
Actually, every subsequent version of OS X has performed better, on every supported architecture, than the previous version. In some cases, quite a bit better and faster.
Leopard is a somewhat different story, though. On older, but still support machines, it can be very much slower than Tiger. The amount of available RAM has a lot to do with this (on some older machines, the maximum RAM "puts the squeeze" on Leopard), as does the presence (or not) of advanced graphics processors.
Certainly, many things are faster in Leopard than they are in Tiger, given a machine that meets certain requirements (enough RAM, advanced graphics, etc.). Leopard's Finder is now multi-threaded, so the apparent speed of the GUI is much improved. Also, the more advanced interaction of the CPU and the GPU provide increased response for many facets of the GUI.
Then, there is the potential full 64-bit aspect of Leopard. If it is being run on a 64-bit machine, it can be significantly faster than any previous version for many tasks.
Disk space only affects speed when it is insufficient for the current virtual memory usage, and in fact, some modern hard drives perform better when more disk space is being used (specifically, those that use the relatively new PMR technology). Up to a point, it is more RAM that has an affect on overall performance, not disk space.
"Archive and Install" moves every part of the current OS into a "Previous Systems" folder, and installs a brand-new, and complete, copy of the new OS. In other words, it uses at least twice the amount of disk space currently being used (by system files, at least). Only an "Upgrade" installation removes and replaces as needed to migrate from one in-place version to another, and only an "Erase and Install" formats the startup volume and installs the new OS, and only the new OS, to the erased volume.
Once you have migrated to Leopard, an additional option is available: "Restore from a Time Machine Backup." While your Time Machine backup, on an external/secondary drive, is not "bootable," the Leopard install disk can use it to completely "Restore" a bootable system, including all your applications and user data, to an erased startup volume. This is not fresh installation of OS X with your data and applications copied back, but a complete restoration of everything from the backup, and it takes much, much less time to perform than a normal installation (it is dependent only on the speed of your external drive. In my case, that is a Firewire 800 drive, and a ~50 GB system takes only 30 minutes to completely restore).
Scott

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
What's wrong with this picture?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

I have no real idea, but I suspect
* the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
* it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

How can I get rid of this Lollipop update? My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem. Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen. The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

Thanks. I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager. It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources. (Fresh boot and all)
What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
<Rant off>

Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

Hi,
Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display. The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Whether it's important to you, only you can know. To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad. For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

Faster than Word!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for