G5 machine LP7 faster than LP8?

Hi There, is it just me or does Logic Pro 8 run somewhat slower on a G5 machine than Logic pro 7 would?
When I open some of the older songs on LP8, the program seems to drag more than it usually would in LP7. Are my observations accurate? Would LP8 run faster if I upgraded to MAC OS X.5? Or is it too going make my G5 even slower?

Chance Harper wrote:
Hi there "fermusic"! Thanks for your post.
Look I love what they have done with LP8, there is just one thing I really don't know what I am going to do about. I mean it's frustrating me to the point of pulling out my hair here!
your G5 is a Dual 1.8... it comes with a old graphic card
... I suppose that your graphic card is a 64Mb Ati?
the original one?
When moving up or down in the arrange page or mixer window, LP8 takes freakin' forever! LP7 use to do that when your playing a project that's a bit processor duty heavy but LP8 does it even if the track isn't playing, it's ridiculous.
There are some issue that comes with the NEW "Cocoa" Logic 8 graphics... (totally new developed... it is totally different from LP7... and comes with big bugs as normal in a so complex software such as Audio DAW)
I can confirm that the Logic 8.0.x graphics section interferes too much with the CPU Audio Performance..
(but not so much with my system... LP7 projects runs with same CPU power request or more power in some cases)
Obviously the previous LP7 "Carbon" Graphics was smoother than actual "Cocoa" but I hope it is a problem of youth that will be resolved on the nexts updates (that for sure will works better on Leopard)
Anyway on my system I don't have many graphics issue... Leopard and Logic works better than Tiger on My Machine...
*This issue are not so big to make me back to LP7*
*Logic Pro *8 is more stable and comes with Sound Quality improvements*
*I never will back to logic 7 and I never will back to Tiger!*
I have a 128MB ATI radeon 9600 pro original installed on My Dual G5!
(I use also 3x UAD-1 that helps the CPU process)
Are there any others of you out there that know what I am talking about? Would the new operating system help with solving this or is a new MAC the only solution?
I'm looking for the "new ATI 9600 pro expecially made for the old G5 AGPX8 256MB... (that supports 2x 30 inch Display without loosing PCI slots)
I think a powerfull Graphics card can help the power of your 1.8 G5 and allow you to use Leopard.
G

Similar Messages

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.

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.

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

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

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.

Is the Core i7 processor comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo from 2009?

I am looking to get a new MacBook Air, but when looking at the prices I am seeing the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price and a lot more guts (RAM and Processor). I am ok with spending the amount of money on the air if it means I get a computer that is like my iPad, which i love (flash based, snappy), but don't want it to be super slow.
I am coming off of a 17" 2.8Ghz MacBook Pro from 2009. I was happy with the speed and power of that machine. The most taxing thing I did was make a complilation of family movies in iMovie and burned them with iDVD once in the 2 years of ownership.
I mostly browse the internet and compose written documents, and keynote presentations.
I know my questions may seem stupid, but I don't know how significant the changes between i7 and Core 2 Duo are, so I ask the question:
I am wondering if the processing power in the core i7 will be somewhat comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo I had in my 2009 computer?
Thanks for any help!!

Hi brosephb,
Like you I went through a similar comparison process. I bought the MacBook air 13" and up specced the processor and memory. I don't do anything taxing enough or frequently enough to NEED the extra power of the MacBook pro.
I am overjoyed at my air. It's gorgeous, the way it wakes instantly, it's speed and it's portableness is so endearing that I just don't use my iPad anymore. I read numerous reviews on it and the overwhelming opinion was it's addictive ease of use because of it's slim, light and rapid waking. At work I can hold the air with one hand, open it rapidly at will. It's just great but it's made my iPad redundant (for me anyway).
I see the new airs are even faster and I'm tempted to consider selling my 6 month old air and getting the new one, but, it runs a dream so I am happy to just be envious of the new one.
In short, unless you need the power (for your work) go for the air. I'm looking at a new iMac to use as a home work station. For the price of a new air I can get an iMac that will swallow any task for a good few years to come. And my air will suffice as my mobile companion. However, that's just me spoiling myself as, at the moment, I have no teal need for another mac. I may get the cinema display for any long winded tasks, as the screen size will help with multiple tasking.
A bit of a ramble, hope this is useful.

New iMac faster than my MacPro?

I've recently purchased a new 24" iMac for a 2nd home I have out west. After a few days tinkering with it I'm pretty positive that this new machine is quicker than my 2 year old MacPro that I have at home. I was hoping after looking at the specs below if people could confirm that this should be the case.
The reason I'm wondering is that I even though the iMac is brand new, the Mac Pro was and still is far more expensive than the iMac. The main reason I would like to know for sure is that since I work from home and have fairly advanced needs (two VMWare Fusion vms running on top of OSX 60+ hours a week working with important financial software), if the iMac is indeed faster I may be looking for an upgrade. Before I essentially toss my $2700 MacPro to the side though I want to make sure the lag that I notice that I don't yet see on the iMac couldn't be simply cured with an OS reinstall, which hasn't been done in over 2 years.
I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors, as well as how important the 1067mhz vs the 667mhz ram is to my needs. I basically run two Fusion VMs with 1gb dedicated to each one in Unity, Safari, iTunes, Mail, Adium, and Skype occasionally.
Specs for each machine..
24" iMac - 2.93ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram 1067mhz, 600gb ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
MacPro w 30" Cinema - 2 x 2.66Ghz Dual Core Intel Xeon, 5GB Ram 667mhz, 250GB ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
All advice greatly appreciated.

I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors
No Intel Mac has ever had a "Pentium" inside.
The Mac Pro would be faster for applications that are designed to use multiple processors. It has 4 cores versus 2 in the iMac.
VMware Fusion has a option (in the virtual machine's settings) to use more than one +virtual processor+, but it is not as efficient booting the OS directly. Also, it probable that things like the financial software you are running on the virtual machine is itself not designed to take advantage of multiple cores. Therefore, CPU clock speed becomes the overriding factor for performance in your case. Since the new iMac runs at 2.93 GHz versus 2.66 GHz for the Mac Pro, it is certainly possible that your iMac is faster than the Mac Pro, in your situation. If you were running Final Cut Studio or Logic Studio (or other app that takes advantage of all the cores), the Mac Pro would be faster.
Also, Snow Leopard has a new technology called Grand Central Dispatch
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral
which is supposed to make use of multiple cores more efficient under Mac OS X. I don't think it will have too much impact on existing third-party software, but it will be interesting to see what the developers at VMware and other third-parties software firms can do with it. So your Mac Pro with four cores may become more efficient (faster) under Snow Leopard.

Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

I have a two year old Macbook; 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM with about 30GB left of memory. I also just purchased, from apple, a 27" Imac; 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 with 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. and have just under 850GB left. The Macbook is running on 10.5.8 and the Imac is on 10.6.3.
My issue is that when i download/stream video to my Imac it takes a substantial amount of time. I love to watch movies, tv shows, ect, on my Imac. I was disappointed by how slow the downloads would take. So I set up my macbook right in front of the Imac to compare the speeds. I went to the Movie Trailers section on apple.com and I clicked on The Last Airbender 1080p (149MB) at the same time for both computers (on WiFi of the same network). My macbook finished the download 5 minutes faster than the Imac. I then tried the 42MB version with a minute difference with the Macbook. I then went to youtube and it was almost the same speed. I tried Itunes and it was about the same speed as well. I then did an internet speed test with both and got these results:
Macbook: Download 18.45Mb/s, Upload 2.28Mb/s, Ping 93
IMac: Download 20.88Mb/s, Upload 2.3Mb/s, Ping 89
I don't know if any of this information helps or if anyone will even read this far but the apple store is extremely far from my house and would try almost anything to fix this issue. My questions are:
1) Is this a known issue that has a fix, if so how do i fix it?
2) Is this possibly a faulty computer that i would have to return?
3) Is this the way it's supposed to operate and if I don't like it take it back
Thanks in advance for anyone who even reads this post.

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Why is my 2008 Macbook faster than my 2012 MacBook Pro?

I got a basic, 13Inch Macbook back in 2008. It has been used, nonstop, for the past almost 5 yrs since i bought it. I never turn it off, it always gets used on a bed/couch, tonnes of windows/programs constantly open. Its full of crappy DLed programs, movies, music and whatnot, has only recently been updated to 10.6 OS X. Its dying, the charger barely works, and it over heats and blacksout sometimes and yet, it runs so much faster than my end of 2012 13in MacBook Pro, 2.9GHz model. Slower to the point that i still use my old one and let Hubby take the new one to the Construction site with him. Ive used it maybe once or twice since i bought it in November. Booting up is slower, general use is slow, opening programs is slower. And its got almost nothing on it!
Just wondering why its slower when its newer and supposedly better? I thought i was upgrading?

Wipe the drive on the new system and Reinstall OS X. Factory installs aren't all they are supposed to be. Sometimes corrupted from the Get Go.
Only by wiping the drive and doing a Fresh Clean Install will you know if your slowness was caused by some type of OS corruption or posibly a hardware problem.
Also you don't mention what RPM the drive is in your older Mac but Apple puts really Slow 5400RMP drives in the newer models by default. These Slow 5400RPM drives will slow down the whole system. Slow to boot. Slow to load programs and files into those programs and slow to save back to the drive. Also OS X is constantly writing to and reading from the hard drive so a slower drive will again slow down the whole system.
If it is less then 14 days old you can return it No Questions Asked for a full refund and then maybe try another, different, machine.

Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

I noticed that slideshow exports in AP3 seemed to take a long time and did a test with iMoive 09. I exported the exact same slideshow of 60 pictures and 1 song from both iMoive and AP3. The iMovie export was 5 times faster than the AP3 export.
Why is this and can anything be done to speedup AP3 slideshow exports?
I have a fairly quick Mac, 2 x 2.26 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 16 meg of ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870.
Any thoughts?
Ken

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Is this logging code faster than using a standard logging API like log4J

is this logging code faster than using a standard logging API like log4J or the logging API in java 1.4
As you can see my needs are extremely simple. write some stuff to text file and write some stuff to dos window.
I am thinking about using this with a multi threaded app. So all the threads ~ 200 will be using this simultaneously.
* Tracer.class logs items according to the following criteria:
* 2 = goes to text file Crawler_log.txt
* 1 = goes to console window because it is higher priority.
* @author Stephen
* @version 1.0
* @since June 2002
import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.text.*;
class Tracer{
public static void log(int traceLevel, String message, Object value)
if(traceLevel == 1){
System.out.println(getLogFileDate(new Date()) +" >" + message+ " value = " + value.toString()););
}else{
pout.write(getLogFileDate(new Date()) +" >" + message + " value = " + value.toString());
pout.flush();
public static void log(int traceLevel, String message )
if(traceLevel == 1){System.out.println(message);
}else{
pout.write(message ) ;
pout.flush();
//public static accessor method
public static Tracer getTracerInstance()
return tracerInstance;
private static String getLogFileDate(Date d )
String s = df.format(d);
String s1= s.replace(',','-');
String s2= s1.replace(' ','-');
String s3= s2.replace(':','.');
System.out.println("getLogFileDate() = " + s3 ) ;
return s3;
//private instance
private Tracer(){
System.out.println("Tracer constructor works");
df = DateFormat.getDateTimeInstance(DateFormat.MEDIUM, DateFormat.MEDIUM);
date = new java.util.Date();
try{
pout = new PrintWriter(new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter("Crawler_log"+getLogFileDate(new Date())+".txt", true)));
pout.write("**************** New Log File Created "+ getLogFileDate(new Date()) +"****************");
pout.flush();
}catch (IOException e){
System.out.println("**********THERE WAS A CRITICAL ERROR GETTING TRACER SINGLETON INITIALIZED. APPLICATION WILL STOP EXECUTION. ******* ");
public static void main(String[] argz){
System.out.println("main method starts ");
Tracer tt = Tracer.getTracerInstance();
System.out.println("main method successfully gets Tracer instance tt. "+ tt.toString());
//the next method is where it fails - on pout.write() of log method. Why ?
tt.log(1, "HIGH PRIORITY");
System.out.println("main method ends ");
//private static reference
private static Tracer tracerInstance = new Tracer();
private static Date date = null;
private static PrintWriter pout = null;
public static DateFormat df = null;
}

In general I'd guess that a small, custom thing will be faster than a large, generic thing with a lot of options. That is, unless the writer of the small program have done something stupid, og the writer of the large program have done something very smart.
One problem with java in this respect is that it is next to impossible to judge exactly how much machine-level processing a single java statement takes. Things like JIT compilers makes it even harder.
In the end, there is really only one way to find out: Test it.

Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

Hey boys and girls,
I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
Thanks for any help in advance.
Ugli
PB Bronze Mac OS X (10.3.9)

ugli:
Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
Good luck in your quest.
cornelius
PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
Rob

That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
- in the router backplane
- in the 802.11n protocol
- in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
regards
Rob

G5 machine LP7 faster than LP8?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for