Idvd performs better than dvdsp

I have tried authoring a 75 min project using compressor and dvdsp and I get this strange pulsing pixelation in certain shots. I author the same project in idvd, I don't get any pulsing, but in the last 10 minutes of the project, I get pixelation on playback.
I have a deadline tomorrow and I'm ready to throw my new macbookpro out the window. I have made numerous tests, using default settings and custom settings, used various disk brands, and still I can't seem to manage the simple task of authoring a 75 min dvd.
Any suggestions? Has anyone else experienced this pulsing?

Hi
Those pulsing shots were made under certain different light condition? Some kind of ambience lighting can make and "pulsating color" effect.
Besides that, what format is your source and what encoding setting did you use in Compressor?
Alberto

Similar Messages

Does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?

does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?
Background:
* just trying to decide what to go for re video editing app with more features than iMovie
* last time I'd tried Adobe Premiere Elements on my MacBook (but it was before I had an SSD) the performance was not good - it was sluggish to the point I really didn't want to use it
* so this question is just about whether in general FCP X performs better on a Mac (you'd think it would no, as it's made/optimized for a Mac)
My MacBook:
Processor 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Elements is essentially an amateur app and Premiere a professional one similar to the discontinued Final Cut Pro 7.
FCP X is a radical new approach to editing which like Marmite, you either love or hate.
It is probably between the 2 in capabitlity but much closer to Premiere.
Some might say it was better than Premiere, whilst other long standing broadcast editors would disagree.
It all depends on your standpoint and I am trying to give an unbiased appraisal.
Some of the techniques it uses are way ahead of all other apps and this is what worries people who have an established way of working, though as I mentioned in another post, there are a few omissions which have upset those editors.
Some might say (echoes of Jeremy Clarkson) that FCP X is the most advanced editing app on the planet albeit with a few teething troubles.

Is Illustrator CS5 performance better than Illustrator CS6?

There is a pretty sharp decline in smoothness of panning, zooming, dragging elements around the screen in Ai CS6.
Using both versions side by side on MacBook Pro i7, 8gb Ram, 10.6.8. Ai v16.0.0. The files are as small as 0-200k.
Ai CS6 is simply jumpy and laggy. Try a new blank artboard of 800x600 in both and drag around view at 100% zoom. The artboard skips around.
It's not unusable, but its there, and for me overshadows the improvements.
Thanks,
Brent

On an iMac 3.4ghz i7/16gb RAM - SL 10.6.8 here, and there is a definite "drag & scroll" lag... sometimes... and it's not necessarily * all Illustrators fault.
1) Try turning off Smart Guides and/or snapping. Depending on the artwork or background and what your trying to move, everything snaps all over the place.
2) Turn off any web streaming and/or close your browser. I tried listening to a radio stream with Firefox, and the Live stream in Quicktime player; both made Illustrator act up and become slow.
3) Those on a Mac may want to repair their permissions, do a restart of the Mac, and see if that clears up anything. Also, look into something like Onyx (free) that allows you to clean your font caches. Fonts = unbelievable after 20+ years that I find this to be the most common problem re: crashes in design software(!!!)
3) as mentioned earlier in the thread, turning off unnecessary processes may also help... but let's be real here: why should a "designer" need to be a tech-nerd and do that to get a "vector" program to work correctly?!? Freehand = 43mb ---- Ilustrator CS6: 261mb + Plugins 129mb = 390mb. And yet Freehand 11 could do more, better, and far easier "vector work" than Illustrator v.16 (CS6). Makes ya wonder... and shake your head a little.
* While there does seem to be some good things about CS6, there are still many (many!) areas for improvement, such as:
a) select a stroked path by it's appearance rather than having to first add the "Outline Stroke" effect;
b) a truly "smart" selection arrow with option toggle;
c) a panel and pointer that makes stars and rounded corners truly interactive, even single rounded corners (inDesign even!) and select points on stars and rounded corner boxes to change them. See Freehand's implementation that is over 16 years old... which even allows individual mixed corners, with negative numbers/curves... all starting from a single drawn box. Adobe owns the tech, code and patents, so why is this so difficult?
While I realize this is no place for a rant or program suggestions, I am going to ask why is CS6 even offered as a "suite"? So many overlapping features; so many, MANY completely different dialog boxes that are "supposed" to do the same exact thing.
Just 1 example:
the Scale dialog in inDesign and Illustrator -- in Illustrator hit "s" then return to get to the dialog...no go in ID... when you do get to the Scale dialog in ID... anemic!... no checkbox for scale strokes and effects, it just does it whether you want it or not.
Imagine a "suite" that used the same dialogs, didn't overlap features and functions**, but was module-based that switched toolsets to what you needed to do, or opened that lightweight module/program that did some things more advanced. Imagine Vector, Text, Photo, Film toolsets and modules that actually did the exact same thing in each suite program. That would be a start.
Question(s): can someone give me one good reason why "Photo Effects" belong in a vector program? Any "pro" knows that you are going to have a much finer control in Photoshop by creating your photo stuff there. Why doesn't Photoshop recognize the Illustrator data as vectors/paths, rather than rasterize them when opening the document?
Just on a closing note... I really believe and humbly suggest that Adobe needs to make a really tough choice after ironing out the bugs in CS6, and consider rewriting everything to use common frameworks, before even thinking about a CS7.
as is common.......... /rant.

I have two very similar iMacs but one performs better than the other. Any ideas?

I have the latest Premier CC on two systems, my 27" i7 iMac w/16 GB RAM at home, and a 27" Retina i5 iMac w/32GB RAM at work. Both are running Yosemite but I don't quite get the performance on my home system as at work. Both are using Mercury openGL. The graphics cards look comparable, far as I can tell -- both have 2GB vram. So the only thing left I can think of is the RAM but before I go spend that money and kill myself if it doesn't make any difference, anybody have any thoughts?

Hi Scott, thanks for the quick reply. I chatted with an Adobe support person who said the extra RAM would only make a difference in "Mercury playback software only" mode. (Of course, this is the same support person who said, unequivocally that "...rendering is always necessary, sir" just after I'd told him that I never have to render on my office system, just my home system, so I'm skeptical he really knew what he was talking about...thus, I'm here in the forum now!)
ANYWAY...sorry to be so lame, but could you clarify how to set cache disk settings? I found memory allocation prefs -- it was set for 12 GB for Premiere, 4 for everything else. I changed it to 13 premiere/3 everything else -- which is all it would allow me to do -- but it doesn't seem to have made a difference. Also, it behaves the same way even if I'm running no other apps at all so not sure the background tasks diagnosis is a factor, but I could absolutely be confused about some key thing you're talking about!

IDVD appears to produce better "hi-def to DVD" than DVDSP and Compressor.

For the last 4 years I have used DVDSP and Compressor to burn DVDs from my HDV and AVCHD/ProRes 422 projects but have always been plagued by the well known less than perfect results.
For some reason creating DVDs from HD material results in slightly lower quality than when using standard def media.
Artefacts such as double-lining and aliasing have been discussed at length in the forums and weird and wonderful time-consuming solutions such as the Bonsai technique have been proposed.
Recently I had reason to go back to iDVD and to my surprise the video quality appeared to be better than DVDSP's.
Gone were the minor but irritating artefacts I had become accustomed to.
Instead I now get sharp smooth images.
It's still early days and I don't know whether the results are due to the idiosyncracies of my editing/burning setup. The DVDs were played in both a Panasonic BD player together with a Panasonic DVD player and viewed on a Sony 40" HDTV connected with HDMI cables.
Maybe if anybody has a few spare moments between projects they could test it out.
Note that I have only tested this with iDVDs "Best Performance" setting which is suitable for DVDs up to 65 minutes long.

Ian,
I'm not sure you need another voice in this conversation…but here's my 2 cents.
While I agree that iDVD can do a very good job of encoding HD to DVD specs, I can't think of any reason why it should be superior to Compressor. In fact, my experience has been the opposite; I get somewhat better (cleaner) results using Compressor and DVDSP. The principal reason is I can start with my saved presets and then – like Michael mentioned…take a small test section and make adjustments if I see something that I don't like.
As for scaling, I do it first, then I make the MPEG as a separate step, (There was a recent thread about this questioning whether this added any value. No mater; it's the way I do it unless I don't have time.)
Good luck.
Russ

Better than iDVD please

Hi there friends,
I was wondering if you can tell me a better DVD burning program a little better than iDVD please.
I am ready to "up" my menu's ect and I looking for the best program.
How much are they??
Thank you

Hi
The Quality of DVD - is mostly not dependant on iDVD but on the DVD-standard
(can't be better than SD-video - There are no HD-DVD that plays on standard DVD-players)
If You need more
• in iDVD keep movie less than 60 minutes and use Pro Quality or Best Performances
• alt is Roxio Toast™ 10 Pro - where You can set higher bit-rate (less movie time)
• or incl BD-component to Toast and burn a Blu-Ray DVD or by using BD-disk/burner
a full Blu-Ray Disk (Need BD-player to be viewed eg PlayStation 3)
• Or Copy back to Camera and connect this to TV/Screen
• Or PlayBack via Mac on a large screen
Yours Bengt W

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

5530 software performance is better than 5800?

Guys,
I'm a 5800XM user and and i found recently some of the feature of new released 5530XM is even better than 5800.
1. no kinetic scrolling in 5800. Really unhappy with this, Scrololing in 5800 is quite inconvenient, the V11 firmware is worst. Why there is no kinetic scrolling in 5800?
2. camera image quality. 3.2MP camera with carl zeis len, dual flash. Image quality i not comparable with 5530. 5800 image quality is really bad for me. The image capture is like a bit blue'ish. I wash an video on youtube, the image capture by 5530 camera is really much more better than 5800, it's quality is very good.
OMG, i'm sad with this. Can anyone tell me what is the reason of this? Nokia's developer, any problem with the firmware or it is a hardware problem. 5800XM cost higher than 5530XM.

Gary Scotland wrote:
or Bean freeware also
With the following limitations (for Word Users)

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
Has anyone experienced this?

Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

What's better than Illustrator?

I've been using Illustrator for many years and several versions. My usage is nominal and occasional/once a week, and I don't get very sophisticated for my needs, so it has been OK so far. I do not do commercial work but know Ai is the "de-facto std".
But I read this forum often and see many criticisms of Ai and I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
I see JET and others here make great use of Illy but also criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things.
So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai? Is it worth having a second program and learning (tho I suspect the learning curve should be easy as they do similar things but have different GUI). Or replacing Illy with something?
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else? I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.

I see JET and others here...criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I can't speak for "and others", but since I'm the only one you mention by name:
If you've already deemed the criticism justifiable, then you must already know what that criticism says. When I criticize Illustrator, I don't just say "Illustrator is crap" and leave it at that, unsupported. I'm careful to explain myself with facts pertinent to the context of the discussion. I actually own and know how to use the other programs to which I compare. I've often posted lists of comparitive features.
I've always used my real name here and sign all my posts with my initials. So finding my comments is not difficult.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things. So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Other than the broadly general things you just mentioned, what program do you want to compare, and for doing what? Surely you're not asking someone to do an exhaustive feature-by-feature comparison between Illustrator and all similar programs in this one thread?
All you've said about what you use Illustrator for is that your use is nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical. Mine isn't. Commerical graphics has been my livelihood for over 40 years. Vector-based illustration is both a speciality and a passion.
I...knowAi is the "de-facto std"
"Defacto standard" is self-fulfilling. It's effectively equivalent to saying "More people use Illustrator because more people use Illustrator."
So what? More people ride Vespa scooters than KTM motorcycles. But which one would you call "professional quality"? You can use either one to pick up a gallon of orange juice at the corner store. But if you enter an enduro, the KTM will get the job done with alot less stress.
The myth is that most software buyers choose the best. That's as naive as the faith that most voters do.
Illustrator has been slothfully resting on its "defacto standard" haunches since the dark ages (AKA the 80s). "Defacto standard" be hanged.
I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
Okay. What issues? State something specific and users actually familiar with other programs can compare.
This is the 21st century. There's really little new under the sun here. A 2D drawing program is just an interface pasted on top of mostly the same old geometric functionality. The competitive advantage goes to the offering that best (easy) and most fully (robust) empowers the user. The multiplication of easy and robust yields elegance. That's a term I've never applied to Illustrator. Illustrator is one of the oldest of the bunch, lounging under the sun for so long it's at risk of skin cancer. Yet it still fails to provide basic functionality users of other drawing programs have taken for granted for decades.
Examples that may be germane to your casual, non-commerical use? Try these things in Illustrator:
Star Tool: Draw a star. Now change the number of points it has.
Arc Tool: Draw 36 degrees of a circular arc.
Label that star with a dimension.
Distribute a group of different objects along a curve.
Uniformly space Blend steps along a non-uniform curve.
Attach a Blend to a closed path and have the first/last instances properly positioned.
Knife Tool: Cut across an open unfilled path.
Connect a text label to an object that stays connected when you move it.
Paste a simple graphic into a text string so that it flows with the text.
Perform a Find/Replace on carriage returns.
Round Corners: Apply it to an accute or obtuse angle and have it actually yield the radius you specify.
Crop a raster image.
Rotate something. Go back later and find out what its rotation angle is.
Pathfinders: Use them without wrecking existing fills/strokes.
I could go on (and have). How long a list do you want? All the features/functions associated with the above basic operations (and many more) are substandard, half-baked, or even non-existent in Illustrator. This is "professional"-grade software? No, it's largely consumerish rubbish sold at exhorbitant prices just because it's the "defacto standard."
Is it worth having a second program and learning...
Obviously, it is to me (and a third, and a fourth, and...). As I've said many times in this forum, I don't know how anyone can legitimately claim to compare two programs if they've only got workaday familiarity with one.
As with any other endeavor, the more drawing programs you're comfortable with, the less arduous it is to pick up another, because you tend to pick up on the underlying principles involved, as opposed to just becomming habituated to a particular program's command locations and procedures by rote.
But you've been using AI for "many years" and find it to be "OK". So if you're happy with it, use it.
I have a cheap, consumerish Ryobi table saw and it's "OK." But I didn't pay a professional-grade price for it, either. And I'm sure not going to write glorious reviews on it, call it "professional," and get all fearfully brand-loyal defensive about it if someone dares suggest I might ought to learn to use a different one. My use of it, like yours, is merely occasional. But I also presently need to build a TV cabinet, and I'm dreading it. If I were to open a cabinet shop, I'd be much more discriminating, and would do my own homework to make an informed decision.
Or replacing Illy with something?
One doesn't have to "replace." There's nothing any more wrong with using more than one 2D drawing program than there is with using more than one 3D modeling program, or raster imaging program, or page layout program, or word processor, or video edting program, or....
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else?
That depends on what one is doing with it. Not knowing that, I can again only offer generalities that matter to me: If you've only ever used one program of a particulat kind, you're rather in the dark regarding functionality that you may be missing that may be important to you. (Second-degree ignorance: You don't know what you don't know.) If you're mission-dependent upon that one program, you're also kind of captive to the whims and agenda of its vendor.
That very well may not matter to you, given your nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical use. And if so, that's fine.
I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
But you just said you've been reading a bunch of posts here which mention other programs.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Only you can answer that about your time. Time is all any of us have.
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.
No offense, but frankly it sounds like you're just not motivated enough to do your own homework. If you are sufficiently motivated, visit the websites of other drawing program vendors. Read the features lists. Dowload the demos, read the documentation, and try them out. Visit the programs' user forums. Or, if it's really not that important to you, don't.
If you've got questions about specific functionality and/or specific programs, be more specific about what you do (or want to do).
JET

Is the 17 inch better than the 15 inch mac book pro?

Which one is better to get and use? 15 or 17 inch?

I have both. One is not necessarily better than the other, really depends on what you plan on using the computer for. Even though the 17" is classified as a portable computer, IMO it's not very portable at all. Go to a store, view handle each for yourself. The 17" is quite large, mine sits on a desk as a desktop replacement. In terms of performance, equipped the same(processor, RAM & GPU), there is only about a 3% performance gain with the 17". Not enough to write home about. The big advantage of the 17" is screen real estate. But, if you want portability, get the 15".

Is Intel better than Power PC?

Hi
Is Intel better than Power PC?
The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1G Ram

Daimon,
I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
Good Luck,
-j

Idvd performs better than dvdsp

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for