Image acquisitio​n slower than expected on Win 7 64bit

Hi all,
I wanted to know if anyone had issue after upgrading OS from Windows XP to Windows 7 64bit.
I had a fairly big project the runs fine on Windows XP, hardware is computer + PCIe 1433 + Basler A504 + external trig source. The frame size 1000*128 pixel so I can acquire at 4kHz. This works fine. NI Software is LV 2011 SP1 + lastest VDM and VAS.
I've tried to switch to Windows 7 64bit with LV 2011 SP1 + VDM + VAS all in 64bit versions and the acquisition doesn't work as I expect.
I've put together a test VI that configures the acquisirion in a similar way that my app does (triggered ring acquisition) with my external trig source set at 4kHz, when I run it, instead of having a 4kHz frame rate I get ~250Hz frame rate.
I also tried triggered acquisition in MAX because I know MAX gives me 2 information : display frame rate and acquisition frame rate, both appear to be ~250Hz.
I contacted NI about this issue, an application engineer has been able to reproduce the issue with similar hardware and we're trying to identify the reason.
Anyone has a clue?
ps : here's the code used to test the acquisition on Win 7 64bit.
When my feet touch the ground each morning the devil thinks "bloody hell... He's up again!"
Attachments:
TestAcqu_64bit.zip ‏99 KB

Hi TiTou,
Please make sure that you are not triggering the camera and the frame grabber board.Sending a trigger signal to the camera in order to trigger acquisition of every frame.  In this case, there is no need to trigger the frame grabber board as well because the camera is being triggered directly.  What was causing the acquisition to run at half the triggered frame rate was the way the signals lined up.  The camera begins acquiring on the rising edge of the trigger pulse.  Once a rising edge is received, FVAL goes high and remains high as long as the camera is exposing.  It then goes low until another trigger pulse is received. 
At the same time, if you are triggering each buffer on the frame grabber, the frame grabber waits to begin reading data from the camera until a rising edge is received, and then begins read out once FVAL goes low.  The result is that the frame grabber begins reading out the current frame, which takes about as long as the camera takes to acquire a frame.  So while the frame grabber is reading out the data, the camera receives the next trigger pulse and begins acquiring the next frame.  However, the frame grabber is still reading out the previous frame and thus ignores the trigger pulse until it finishes, resulting in an acquired frame rate that is exactly half of the triggered rate.  At lower rates, there is enough time for the camera and the frame grabber to acquire the frame off the same trigger pulse and "re-arm" before the next pulse arrives.
Elmar
PS: Please also make sure the exposure time is lower as 161us.

Similar Messages

  • Photoshop CS5 & Lightroom running slower than expected...

    Hi All,
    Hope someone can help me out here. I have a 2.66 Quad Core MacPro (2009) with 8gb RAM & I find Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom don't run as quickly as I would expect.
    For instance a lot of times when applying actions in Photoshop I will get the blue "applying filter" bar which will sit for quite some time.
    I have IStat widget installed so tonight as Photoshop really slowed down I went to the widget to take a look and this was what was happening: (not sure if this is useful or not?)
    CPU was 97% idle
    Memory was Wired-643mb / Active-4.91gb / InActive-2.42gb / Free-11mb
    Processors was Adobe Photoshop between 6.8% & 23.6%
    Any idea what would cause the slow down and if there is anything I can do to speed things up?
    Appreciate it.
    Andrew

    There are a number of guides to setting up Mac Pro.
    http://macperformanceguide.com/
    Read, test, and follow this guide using your own files and such:
    http://homepage.mac.com/boots911/.Public/PhotoshopAccelerationBasics2.4W.pdf
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=11661836&#11661836
    http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404440.html
    10.6.4 + CS5 + Graphics
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2462882&tstart=0
    Double your memory probably if not more.
    http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory

  • Airport Extreme file transfer speed slower than expected.

    I have an Airport Extreme with a 1 TB drive attached.
    I'm trying to copy a bunch of files to it with a Windows Vista computer with a D-Link wireless N dual-band adapter (connected to the 5GHZ channel, which I configured to act solely as wireless N 5 GHZ), but the transfer is only taking place at 1.3 MB/sec.
    I'd expect more in the 8-9 MB/sec range for my new router given other benchmarks I've seen. What could be going on?

    I have an Airport Extreme with a 1 TB drive attached.
    I'm trying to copy a bunch of files to it with a Windows Vista computer with a D-Link wireless N dual-band adapter (connected to the 5GHZ channel, which I configured to act solely as wireless N 5 GHZ), but the transfer is only taking place at 1.3 MB/sec.
    I'd expect more in the 8-9 MB/sec range for my new router given other benchmarks I've seen. What could be going on?

  • SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SLOWER THAN EXPECTED

    The system performance is poor. Any tips?  Should I schedule a genius bar appointment?

    The system performance is poor.
    In what way?  Need details.  Please detail ALL you have done so far in the way of troubleshooting?   Need this info to avoid the been there done that scenarios.
    Any tips?
    Not until you provide details.
    Should I schedule a genius bar appointment?
    Not until we find out if it's necessary.
    OS X (10.6)
    Use Software Update or the OS 10.6.8 combo update to update your OS.  Also, update everything SU has to offer for your computer.  When done, repair permissions and restart your computer.

  • Images du projet +lentes que l'original/Project picture more slower than original pictures

    Je n'arrive pas à corriger la vitesse de déroulement du montage projet. How can I fix the speed of the projct to be the same of the original?
    Le déroulement du projet est plus lent, ce qui donne des images saccadées comme-ci il y avait un effet ralenti. Cependant le son demeure exact avec l'original sans décalage.
    The project show pictures more slower than the original, but the sound is okay.
    Merci
    Jean

    Exactly what are you editing?
    Codec & Format information, with 2 links inside for you to read http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1270588
    Report back with the codec details of your file, use the programs below... A screen shot works well to SHOW people what you are doing
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/592070?tstart=30 for screen shot instructions
    Free programs to get file information for PC/Mac http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo/Download

  • Possible answer to LR 2.6 & 2.7 Seeming to run slower than earlier versions

    I just downloaded and unpgraded from LR 2.6 to 2.7 on a Windows Vista 64-bit machine.  Version 2.6 seemed to run a lot slower than 2.5.  When I read the LR2.7 readme file on the download page I noticed one of the known issues is that at least ver. 2.7 runs slower when there are lots of files in the recycle bin. after I upgraded I emptied the recycle bin (Of almost 3000 files), and yes indeed performance did improve - dramatically.  This also improved performance on LR 3 Beta 2.

    Thanks for the suggestions.  I have tried each idea in the order suggested. Unfortunately I have not yet solved the problem.  In some circumstances, with certain paper profiles and no other color management in place, I get faulty prints but they have large areas of solid color in areas where there is a large amounts of color saturation in the original image. The faulty image below is printed to plain letter-sized paper ar Normal Quality. One clarification I wish to make is that my HP printer driver was not specifically a 64-bit driver, but rather 32-bit/64-bit driver compatable for Win 7.
    I may try completely uninstalling LR before reinstalling, instead of a "repair-install" but I am still open to other suggestions.
    Camron

  • Slow applications start from win 2012 file server using win 7 workstations

    I hope someone can help me with why applications are slow to load i have replaced a 8 year old server running  win 2003 and replaced it with dell t620 running win 2012 r2 it is like 20 times faster but it is slower than the old server. the office has
    7 win 7 x64 machines all our applications are running from win 2012 file server. The server is set up as following the server runs with two hyper-v machines one machine runs ad, file server, dhcp, dns and printer server and the other is domino server and remote
    desktop. 
    the machine is more than capable but it is not so i started reading after i run out of ideas. i looked every where but the issue is with the server after trying everything else i did a simple test If i go to the application folder and click on it apps load
    instantly if i then type a unc path it takes from instant load to 3 and a bit seconds the same as the workstations. The same speed if I use ip address.
    network cards are intel
    i would really appreciate if somebody has suggestions that i could try
    thank you

    Hi,
    Do you mean that applications in the application folder start slowly when you access the application folder on the Windows 2012 R2 file server from Windows 7 workstations using UNC path or IP address. Do all the files in the application folder have the same
    issue? Please create a shared folder on the file server, then access the shared folder from Windows 7 workstations to check if the issue still exists.
    You could disable SMBv3 on server 2012 to check if the issue related to SMB protocol. 
    How to enable and disable SMBv1, SMBv2, and SMBv3 in Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 8, and Windows Server 2012
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2696547/en-us
    Warning: We do not recommend that you disable SMBv2 or SMBv3. Disable SMBv2 or SMBv3 only as a temporary troubleshooting measure. Do not leave SMBv2 or SMBv3 disabled.
    Best Regards,
    Mandy 
    We
    are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
    interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
    Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

  • Flash player 10.1 slower than 10

    At least, that's how it is on my secondary computers. On my Dell Inspiron B120, flash 10.1 latest is like a train wreck when it comes to playing Youtube videos in full screen. Disabling hardware acceleration helped a little, but this shouldn't be happening as I uninstalled 10.1 and installed an archived version of Flash 10 with much better playback AND with h/w acceleration enabled. The laptop uses XP SP3 and Firefox.
    Simply put, Flash 10.1 feels a lot slower than 10 on my Dell laptop (1.4 GHz celeron-M, intel 915g video, 512 mb ram)
    And there's another odd but minor problem I seem to be having with is flash animations on my main computer and any other computer/laptop I have using Flash 10.1. I get this alternating 'lag' every few seconds; it's like the computer is dropping frames because the CPU can't keep up. I could completely understand this, but this is happening on practically any flash animation I throw at the computer. I just tested a flash movie (SWF format) on my main computer (2.8 GHz AMD Athlon x2 240; 2 gb ram, Windows 7 x64, Firefox) and I get this irritating choppy lag here and there. Again, with the previous Flash version 10, I did NOT have this problem AT ALL. Everything was silky smooth; the only benefit I'm getting from Flash 10.1 is x264 hardware acceleration for my ATI Radeon 4200 HD. Before anyone asks, all of my computers were using the latest flash version AND video drivers prior to these tests.
    I am VERY frustrated with these problems as I've posted a similar thread twice now in the past. No one seems to be answering or helping me with this; Those that do reply simply claim that they're having the same problem.
    Adobe, please look into this problem. Eventually Youtube and several other sites will force me to upgrade my laptop to Flash 10.1.

    Has Adobe fixed the problems with version 10,1,82,76 of flash player ?
    I compared it and found nothing but problems.
    I then uninstalled 10,1,82,76 and rolled back to 10,0,12,36 which works fine on Firefox and Opera but I can't install 10,0,12,36 on Exploer or Chrome
    it keeps telling me there is a new version even when I try to install it from local drive with a archived version.
    With all the complaints about 10,1,82,76 and the lack of response from Adobe on any fixes I will not be using Adobe auto updates until I let some
    other poor guinea pigs suffer all the bugs and problems first.
    You would expect a large company to have better development and testing before imposing buggy upgardes on us.

  • I have found that my Mac Book Pro 15 inch late 2011 is slower than my PC Windows 7 for certain downloads, and working with iPhoto.  Would adding RAM be helpful in speeding up this process.  Currently I have the stock 4GB RAM, and storage 500GB HD drive.

    I have found that my Mac Book Pro late 2011 15 inch is slower than I expected with certain downloads, or working with iPhoto than expected compared to my previous Windows 7 PC.  Would adding RAM be of any value in speeding up the process?

    how to tell if your mac needs more ram

  • PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

    Yes, very very strange.
    I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
    I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
    Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
    The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
    I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
    On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
    New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
    New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
    (above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
    I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
    I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
    One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
    In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
    So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
    I'm stumped.

    >Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
    Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
    In case I'm being less than clear:
    Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
    Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
    On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
    ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
    If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
    I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
    > Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
    Thanks Allen,
    Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
    So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
    The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
    Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
    I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

  • Why is InDesign CC significantly SLOWER than CS6?

    InDesign CC is noticeably SLOWER in almost every aspect and functionality than is the latest version of InDesign CS6 on my computer (OSX 10.9.4, 2.66 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, 27 inch iMac). I have stopped using Indesign CC and now only use CS6 to create and adjust documents.
    Can any staff or special users in this forum detail ADOBE's understanding or response to complaints of this nature?
    This situation does not bode well for me, given the coerced direction Adobe is taking users of its creative suite (towards cloud based subscription systems).

    I rebuilt all my preferences and that led to some kind of discovery. Starting InDesign CC everthing works ok (though the drawing tools are slightly slower than in CS6, creating a new page for example is much faster). All the following things mainly have an impact on drawing tools (pen tool, rectangle tool etc. placing multiple images is also affected but maybe because an image frame has to be drawn). After activating the application frame things start to slow down a bit. If I open the collapsed panels on right side things get slowed down again and the biggest hit on performance is evident when the information panel is open.
    I wanted to record a screen-capture again but this is so slow that it does not represent the bug accurately. And I guess this has something to do with the user interface because all is linked to interface actions (application frame, opening/collapsing panels, showing the information panel)
    Once again my system specs (when experiencing the issues half of my RAM was still free with Safari, Mail and InDesign CS6 and CC open for comparison):
    InDesign CC (German)
    Mac OS 10.8.4
    MacBook Pro 17inch
    8 GB RAM
    2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
    500 GB HD (200 GB free)

  • Firefox 4 MUCH slower than 3.6.. Windows 7 32 bit PC

    I installed Firefox 4 yesterday on my Win 7 32 bit Dell laptop with 4.0 GB memory installed and its own graphics card. I had installed Firefox 4 on my desktop (Win 7 64bit with 6GB RAM) a week ago and it worked great. On this laptop machine after the install of Firefox 4 the web sites came up VERY slow. this seems to be almost all web sites. Some are taking significantly longer to load. The sites also scrolled very slowly or choppy with the scroll wheel. I just now rolled back to Firefox 3.6 and all of the problems are gone and the browsing is back to normal speed and is significantly faster than Firefox 4. There were no other speed issues with other programs on this laptop. Also I did install IE9 on this machine and I am not seeing the same issues with it in comparison.

    I've got exactly the same problem.
    MBPro 2.8GHz, 4GB
    OSX 10.6.2
    VirtualBox 59351
    Had an older version of VirtualBox and Win7 installed which was doing perfectly fine. Had to reinstall Win7 and upgraded VirtualBox at the same time.
    Now my machine doesn't cope at all when running Win7 as a guest...
    Restoring a saved Win7 state takes about 4minutes and once restored CPU is maxed out and Win7 is unusably slow.
    Any help is greatly appreciated.

  • Why is my iPhone 5 S WiFi speed 50% slower than my MacBook Air 2012?

    Why is my iPhone 5 S WiFi speed 50% slower than my MacBook Air 2012?

    Hello jagimc,
    Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
    For more information on this, take a look at this article:
    iOS: Troubleshooting Wi-Fi networks and connections
    http://support.apple.com/kb/ts1398
    Wi-Fi disconnects, or signal strength is less than expected
    Move closer to the Wi-Fi router (access point).
    Check for sources of potential interference.
    Remove any case, stand, or other accessories from your iOS device and see if signal strength improves.
    Reset network settings by tapping Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings.
    Note: This will reset all network settings including: previously connected Wi-Fi networks and passwords, recently used Bluetooth accessories, VPN and APN settings.
    Best of luck,
    Mario

  • ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

    A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
    Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing. 

    It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
    Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
        Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
        created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
    Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
    1.  ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
    2.  Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
    -Noel
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
         Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

  • InDesign CC responds slower than CS6 - any advice?

    I've been using a trial of InDesign CS6 which ran smoothly for a month. Today I upgraded to InDesign CC.
    I've only been using it today but there are detectable and annoying pauses when performing the following actions
    Placing and relinking files
    Exporting to PDF
    Creating new files
    Save as...
    Anyone else experiencing this?
    Using Windows 7 Ultimate
    16GB Ram
    64 bit OS
    I have 250 GB SD drive for my software and a 3TB drive for my files.
    I'm not great with the hardware so if I need to supply any other info please let me know!
    Thanks
    Ruth

    I rebuilt all my preferences and that led to some kind of discovery. Starting InDesign CC everthing works ok (though the drawing tools are slightly slower than in CS6, creating a new page for example is much faster). All the following things mainly have an impact on drawing tools (pen tool, rectangle tool etc. placing multiple images is also affected but maybe because an image frame has to be drawn). After activating the application frame things start to slow down a bit. If I open the collapsed panels on right side things get slowed down again and the biggest hit on performance is evident when the information panel is open.
    I wanted to record a screen-capture again but this is so slow that it does not represent the bug accurately. And I guess this has something to do with the user interface because all is linked to interface actions (application frame, opening/collapsing panels, showing the information panel)
    Once again my system specs (when experiencing the issues half of my RAM was still free with Safari, Mail and InDesign CS6 and CC open for comparison):
    InDesign CC (German)
    Mac OS 10.8.4
    MacBook Pro 17inch
    8 GB RAM
    2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
    500 GB HD (200 GB free)

Maybe you are looking for

  • I bought the wrong upgrade to Tiger disk

    Recently I bought an iMac Mac OS Install 2 Disk set (gray color) with the following detail: Mac OS version 10.4.7, ANT Version 3A112, Disc Version, 1.0, #2Z691-5883-A. My iMac accepted the disk but when I tried to install the Tiger package it display

  • Error while invoking DXFA to stitch templates

    Hi, I am getting the following exception when I attempt to invoke DXFA to stitch multiple templates dynamically. The stitching works fine though. It is just the error message being printed that is annoying. I am using the JAR files from the Account E

  • MRP is not working

    Dear  Masters We are using auto generation P.Rs through M.R.P, here my problem is one MRP material is not getting generating the P.R since there is no stock. Could nay bady explain me the reason? I have checked the  safety stock  = 4 , Minimum stock

  • I get "File failed to convert" in ExportPDF Online when the file is only 356 KB and I've used less than 9 MB of storage.

    How do I get it to convert?

  • Weird flash issue in firefox 3

    hi i recently installed firefox 3 (for mac os x) and have noticed a very strange issue in it with one of the sites i have built. basically, if I go to the site 'hidden' in FF3 the site (which is a flash movie) appears as intended, but if i type in 'h