Intel more reliable than G4 ??

hi, all
i have an old iMac 233 MHz, still running (except that it never would wake up correctly, otherwise NO problem for 8 years!!) . 20 months ago i bought an iMac G5 20", which developed recently major problems, which are NOT solved after the official apple service exhanged the logic board. 10 days ago, i bought for my daughter an miniMac G4, which now already showed Kernel-Panics. These are things which fall under Apple warranty, and are not the topics of this post here.
my question is the following:
I need another computer, small type desktop like the mini. Laptop might be a solution as well, but is expensive and less suitable. The past experience with my iMac and the miniMac g4 get me suspicious about the reliability of Aplle.
has anybody some kind of overview on whether the miniMac intel (single processor) are more reliable -- well, i know: how to gauge it? thus
"more reliable than my experience with G4 and G5 machines"?
any response is welcome, and "Thanks in advance"
Thomas

Hello,
That is a tough one to answer with certainty since we don't have real numbers to play with. But, from my perspective, the Mac Mini G4 was the most reliable computer Apple has produced since the introduction of the Mini. I've had nothing but good reliable service from mine, and all the other new machines I've purchased since the G4 mini have been sold because they kept breaking down. So, I've repeatedly gone back to my slower mini G4 because of it's reliability.
The Intel Mini seems to have had comparable success to the G4 Mini. It would appear from most reports that the Intel Mini is almost as reliable as the G4 mini. For most accounts, it would seem to be on equal footing. But, there are more graphical anomalies and sound problems that have cropped-up in the Intel versions. These are not necessarily wide-spread problems, but just problems that were not present in the G4 versions.
So, from what I have seen and experienced, I would compare the G4 Minis and Intel Minis as being very much the same in terms of reliability. I would add that the Intel Mini has had problems that the G4 Mini has not had. But, that does not appear to be a significant number of units. So, they are probably very comparable.
Whether this helps or not, I don't know. But, I hope it does help you to some degree.
Let us know if you have other questions.

Similar Messages

  • Is DVD Studio Pro More Reliable Than iDVD?

    Is DVD Studio Pro more reliable than iDVD?
    Because my needs are simple, I thought I'd just use iDVD to burn DVDs. I created a movie in Final Cut Express, exported it as a Quicktime movie with chapter markers, and created an iDVD project around it. The iDVD project recognizes the chapter markers and it all plays just fine from within iDVD, but I haven't been able to successfully burn a DVD of the project.
    The video is a little over an hour long. When I start the burn process a box tells me that it will take something like 3 hours and 45 minutes, and the clock starts ticking down. Fine. Then somewhere around two hours later, iDVD quits and I get a message saying only that iDVD "quit unexpectedly." (As if I didn't know that.) The same thing happens when I try to save as a disc image instead of burning directly to a DVD. I've got plenty of hard disk space, have repaired permissions, etc.
    This leaves me wondering whether DVD Studio Pro might be a more robust program. This is a very simple project -- one video, 13 chapters -- so it's very disappointing that iDVD can't seem to deal with it.
    So -- is there any general consensus about how DVD Studio Pro compares to iDVD in terms of stability and reliability?

    I do not think there is a clear answer on that one. I use both and find iDVD has less issues than DVD SP (not that DVD SP has a ton of issues, but enough that eventually you will probably run into something that will throw things off and will need to know the workaround.)
    If you look at the boards you will see people that have problems with both applications. Not that either one is bad, but since boards are designed to help with issues, it is rare that you get someone saying "Wow this has been rock solid for a year" so it is always a grain of salt.
    DVD SP does give you more control over things, but by the same token it may not be the application you need. In other words since it is now part of the Final Cut Studio you would need to take a look at the Studio and see if it is something you want. The iApps overall, IMHO, do quite alot for many things and I use them often depending on what I am trying to do. Your project should work it sounds like and there may be something going on (well yes there is of course) You may want to take a quick look at these threads where people have quit issues with iDVD and see if any of the details in th workflow, computer etc are similar and if there are solutions.
    QUit iDVD Issues
    Hope this helps a bit

  • Quitting & Reopening Mail is more reliable than Get Mail

    Almost anytime I suspect Apple Mail not to be showing me my mail, I close and reopen it, and am flooded with email. Why does Get Mail not work reliably?

    It is all because of the connection...
    when you close Apple mail client the connection to the server closes as well, and soon you start up, it connects and all runs smoothly.
    when you click GetMail button, the connection it might be already available, so it needs to clean up the buffer, check if it was downloading something, verify this and that... and then get email content... and sometimes (but only sometimes) it is best to close the connections (closing the Mail client).
    as I said in the beginning, it's all about your connection, DSL connections have more problems than High speed cable ones, but... at least now you know why!
    P.S. here I never shut down the Mail, i always get t soon I press GetMail (I do have several accounts, including Google Mail, on Apple mail)

  • Why 3g slower but more reliable than WiFi

    Hi all,
    I did a ton of testing on WiFi and 3g yesterday on my 32gig 3gs. The best I could get out of WiFi at my house was just about 11 Mbps down and 5 up. The best on 3g I've seen was just approaching 1 Mbps up and down. So I think WiFi should get my downloads about 10 times as fast and hopefully more reliable, but it doesn't seem to be the case. WiFi will load what seems to be just as slow as 3g but if I try to skip foreward on a video or something it will glitch out or just stop loading. But with 3g I can skip foreward and it will catch up to where I want to be and continue the video.
    I guess that's not really a question but I want to see if anyone else agrees or knows a possible fix.

    My wifi is far faster and more consistent then 3g too. On my home wifi (also in an apartment) I think I'm using channel 9, and I also have my wireless router set to 802.11g-only (for my iPhone, printer, and two computers all connected via wifi).
    If you are getting starts and stops and such, also check for placement and possible interferance. If you have cordless telephones, are they DECT, 5Ghz or what? Is your wifi router placed up high, or near the floor (higher will usually give better signal). Is it near a stereo, television, microwave, house fan, air purifier, or other device that may cause interference? Are you usually in a place where there is a wall (or two) between you and the router (and if so, are they bare walls, or are there nice big metal appliances up against them)?
    There are all sorts of things that can mess up a wifi signal - in most home's, I'm amazed it works at all! Just kidding, but there are a number of things you can check out to be sure you are getting the best, most robust signal possible.

  • Why is using AppleTv more reliable than Remote?

    WE have itunes setup on a PC upstairs, we have an AppleTV setup in the family room, to our TV and to the stereo using the optical out. EVERTTHING  is connected with hardwired Ethernet cable!
    When we use the REMOTE ap from our iPhones to play iTunes through the stereo, the music often stutters. If we switch to using the AppleTV to play our iTunes, it plays flawlessly.  Why?

    The music does not sutter constantly, but ever couple of minutes or so it cuts out for a second, restarts, and repeats a couple times. This is while using the REMOTE app to control the PC iTunes.
    If we use the AppleTV interface (on the TV) and the Apple TV remote-control hardware, no stutters.
    Again this makes no sense. In both cases the source files are coming from the PC iTunes, over wired Ethernet to the AppleTV.
    Of course when using the REMOTE app, the PC iTunes being controlled by the REMOTE app is set to use AirPlay to play to the AppleTV,
    and with using the AppleTV, the AppleTV talks directly to the PC iTunes.
    But either way, files are just moving from the PC iTunes to the AppleTV and then to the stereo.

  • Any suggestions of a more reliable program than Premiere CS6?

    Any suggestions of a more reliable program than Premiere CS6? Too many issues that I spend more time trying to resolve than using the program creatively?

    CS6 is completely solid and error free for me... what is your problem?
    More information needed for someone to help... please click below and provide the requested information
    -Premiere Pro Video Editing Information FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/message/4200840
    •What is your exact brand/model graphics adapter (ATI or nVidia or ???)
    •What is your exact graphics adapter driver version?
    •Have you gone to the vendor web site to check for a newer driver?
    •For Windows, do NOT rely on Windows Update to have current driver information
    •-you need to go direct to the vendor web site and check updates for yourself
    •ATI Driver Autodetect http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/auto-detect-tool
    •nVidia Driver Downloads http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us
    Exactly what is INSIDE the video you are 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
    Does your video use a VARIABLE Frame Rate or a Constant Frame Rate?

  • Will the new Fire Fox run so well as the actua in my pc? I have an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.40 GHz 736 MB RAM and Windows XP Version 2002 Service Pack 2 and Fire Fox 3.6.24 or it will take my pc more ressources than currently?

    I have an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.40 GHz 736 MB RAM and Windows XP Version 2002 Service Pack 2 and Fire Fox 3.6.24 or it will take my pc more ressources than currently?

    Pay attention to what rkaufmann87 is saying, because I agree.
    Chrome is very resource intensive.
    It is possible you are running other memory intensive apps.
    You have a lot of 3rd party additions loaded at boot time.  Do you really need all of them?  Even after you get rid of MacCleaner (as suggested by rkaufmann87).
    Do you really need the seagate and WD drive software?  The Mac is fairly good at accessing disks without 3rd party intervention.
    Any of the 3rd party additions listed by EtreCheck that you do not need, you should consider uninstalling.
    That fact that you have
        171.19 GB    Page-ins
    in just about 4 days, says you have about 0.5megabytes per second.  That is a huge load on your disk drive.
    Either cut back on the RAM intensive apps, or get more RAM.  At least 8GB, but if your Mac supports it, 16GB.  Crucial.com and MacSales.com (OWC) are well respected by the long term forum contributes.

  • Is the current MacBook more reliable running Windows than a MacBook Pro?

    I have a newish Santa Rosa/Penryn based MacBook Pro. Unfortunately, I have to run some apps under Windows and am running XP most of the time. However, the MacBook Pro has proven to be a poor choice for this. I get a Windows Blue Screens of Death on a frequent basis (more frequent than I ever seen on any non-Apple notebook). Burning DVDs take almost 30 minutes now (it used to take 10 minutes). The wifi drops constantly. Audio glitches most of the time. It is really frustrating and has only gotten worse with time and updated drivers.
    I have a MacBook for work that I run MacOS (and the OS from my employer) on and it seems to work more nicely that my MacBook Pro.
    Does the MacBook run Windows XP more reliably that the MacBook Pro?

    In this context, I think Kappy was suggesting that "defective" meant that your
    XP had either not installed correctly or the installation had become corrupted.
    I know it's a complete pain and would waste at least a day, but I'd be tempted
    to reformat the Boot Camp partition and try installing again from the Win XP CD.
    The BSOD issue with the MBP has been present since early on and reported by others as well. The problem is with the Apple supplied driver(s). (I have run diagnostic tools that point to the wifi driver being part of the problem, but not the entire problem. I suspect that there might also be an issue with the touchpad driver, but I haven't run any tests to verify that.) I just don't get the sense that Apple has much motivation to fix the problem(s). The nature of the BSOD problem (as reported by the BSOD) is something that could lead to the other problems that I have observed.
    I have had my MBP for a few months with no sign from Apple that the issue is being addressed. The MBP is a great machine, but unless someone ports all of the apps that I need to MacOS X, I need to run Windows better than it does.
    So, any more reports on how well XP runs on a MacBook?

  • Disk Utility: for bad blocks on hard disks, are seven overwrites any more effective than a single pass of zeros?

    In this topic I'm not interested in security or data remanence (for such things we can turn to e.g. Wilders Security Forums).
    I'm interested solely in best practice approaches to dealing with bad blocks on hard disks.
    I read potentially conflicting information. Examples:
    … 7-way write (not just zero all, it does NOT do a reliable safe job mapping out bad blocks) …
    — https://discussions.apple.com/message/8191915#8191915 (2008-09-29)
    … In theory zero all might find weak or bad blocks but there are better tools …
    — https://discussions.apple.com/message/11199777#11199777 (2010-03-09)
    … substitution will happen on the first re-write with Zeroes. More passes just takes longer.
    — https://discussions.apple.com/message/12414270#12414270 (2010-10-12)
    For bad block purposes alone I can't imagine seven overwrites being any more effective than a single pass of zeros.
    Please, can anyone elaborate?
    Anecdotally, I did find that a Disk Utility single pass of zeros seemed to make good (good enough for a particular purpose) a disk that was previously unreliable (a disk drive that had been dropped).

    @MrHoffman
    As well pointed your answers are, you are not answering the original question, and regarding consumer device hard drives your answers are missleading.
    Consumer device hard drives ONLY remap a bad sector on write. That means regardless how many spare capacity the drive has, it will NEVER remap the sector. That means you ALWAYS have a bad file containing a bad sector.
    In other words YOU would throw away an otherwise fully functional drive. That might be reasonable in a big enterprise where it is cheaper to replace the drive and let the RAID system take care of it.
    However on an iMac or MacBook (Pro) an ordinary user can not replace the drive himself, so on top of the drive costs he has to pay the repair bill (for a drive that likely STILL is in perfect shape, except for the one 'not yet' remaped bad block)
    You simply miss the point that the drive can have still one million good reserve blocks, but will never remap the affected block in a particular email or particular song or particular calendar. So as soon as the file affected is READ the machine hangs, all other processes more or less hang at the same moment they try to perform I/O because the process trying to read the bad block is blocking in the kernal. This happens regardless how many free reserve blocks you have, as the bad block never gets reallocated, unless it is written to it. And your email program wont rewrite an email that is 4 years old for you ... because it is not programmed to realize a certain file needs to be rewritten to get rid of a bad block.
    @Graham Perrin
    You are similar stubborn in not realizing that your original question is awnsered.
    A bad block gets remapped on write.
    So obviously it happens at the first write.
    How do you come to the strange idea that writing several times makes a difference? How do you come to the strange idea that the bytes you write make a difference? Suppose block 1234 is bad. And the blocks 100,000,000 to 100,000,999 are reserve blocks. When you write '********' to block 1234 the hard drive (firmware) will remap it to e.g. 100,000,101. All subsequent writes will go to the same NEW block. So why do you ask if doing it several times will 'improve' this? After all the awnsers here you should have realized: your question makes no sense as soon as you have understood how remapping works (is supposed to work). And no: it does not matter if you write a sequence od zeros, of '0's or of '1's or of 1s or of your social security number or just 'help me I'm hold prisoner in a software forum'.
    I would try to find a software that finds which file is affected, then try to read the bad block until you in fact have read it (that works surprisngly often but may take any time from a few mins to hours) ... in other words you need a software that tries to read the file and copies it completely, so even the bad block is read (hopefully) successful. Then write the whole data to a new file and delete the old one (deleting will free the bad block and ar some later time something will be written there and cause a remap).
    Writing zeros into the bad block basically only helps if you don't care that the affected file is corrupted afterwards. E.g. in case of a movie the player might crash after trying to display the affected area. E.g. if you know the affected file is a text file, it would make more sense to write a bunch of '-' signs, as they are readable while zero bytes are not (a text file is not supposed to contain zero bytes)
    Hope that helped ;)

  • USB Disk via USB Hub or Ethernet NAS Connection More Reliable?

    This is a rather techical question that calls for an opinion.
    I want to centralize backups for my daughter, wife and myself.  I'm going to add the latest model Airport Extreme Base Station as both an internet access point (from my cable modem) and as a wireless router to hard drive storage.  I know there are cheaper (and probably faster) wireless routers; however, I've used various models of airport base stations over the years with my cable modem and they have all worked flawlessly and never need rebooting.
    My two choices:  1) Connect a 4-port, powered USB hub to the usb connection on the Airport Extreme and use a pair of 3GB hard drives--one for primary backup and the second for the backup of the backup.  2) Use a QNAP TS110 or TS112 NAS device and connect it to the Base Station via gigabit ethernet.  Then, an external USB drive would be connected to the QNAP NAS device.  I've encountered QNAP NAS products in my work life and have been incredibly impressed with them--reliable, very low power requirements, reasonably easy setup via Web browser.
    Choice 1 will be about $125 less expensive than Choice 2.  I'll have to use the Linux Ext3 or 4 partition map for both drives under Choice 2 but the external USB volume can be formatted in Mac HFS+.  Choice 2 will be theoretically faster because of the gigabit ethernet connection (probably irrelevant because of the slow wireless n throughput) but the QNAP device can be set to do automated backups to the USB drive that would be connected to it.  That's nice. 
    My question:  Based on what I've read over the years about connecting USB disks to an Airport Extreme base station, I have the opinion that an ethernet connection to an NAS device may be more reliable (ie, the client computers don't drop the connection to the hard drive as often).  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I would like an opinion.
    Also, I know how slow the real throughput will be as a result of clients connecting via wireless n.  In real life, with decent quality connections, I'll be looking at 10MB to 12MB per second max.  The first backups will take days; however, subsequent incremental backups will be much faster.  I don't plan to use Time Machine, but rather to use Carbon Copy Cloner to make backups to read/write sparse disk image bundles (CCC won't do regular backups to networked drives).  I tried Time Machine a while back but would rather have access to actual files as as a complete disk image that would be bootable when written back to a drive.  Call me old-fashioned, but that's me.  I also have two other bootable backups on 2.5" external drives--one that stays with me and another is always at my work place.  Also, I'm not interested in a Time Capsule because I don't think their reliability is all that great (bad design with too much heat buildup).
    Thanks for any insights you can offer.

    I meant to say 3TB drives, not 3GB.

  • Which is more reliable/ better value: t540p or w541?

    Which of the following configurations is a better value and/or is more reliable
    1) T540p with:
    -4th Gen Intel® Core™ i5-4330M (3MB Cache, up to 3.50GHz)
    -Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (either originally or via downgrade rights from windows 8.1)
    -15.6" FHD (1920x1080) With WWAN
    -NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M 1GB (1GB? game-debate lists this as a 2GB card)
    -4GB PC3-12800 DDR3L SDRAM 1600MHz SODIMM (planning on upgrading to 16GB later)
    -ThinkPad TrackPad No Fingerprint Reader
    -No Camera
    -500GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm, 2.5"
    -DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer
    -No Smart Card Reader
    -6 Cell Li-Ion Cylindrical Battery 56.16Wh
    -65W AC Adapter - AG
    -ThinkPad Wireless 2 x 2 BGN with Bluetooth
    -Integrated Mobile Broadband upgradable
    -1 Year Depot or Carry-in Warranty
    Ports: Mini DP, VGA, 2 x USB 3.0 (1x always-on), 2 x USB 2.0, Ethernet, Combo jack,
    Audio: Dolby® Advanced Audio™
    Web Price:$1314.00
    OR
    2) W541 with:
    -Intel Core i7-4710MQ Processor (2.5GHz, up to 3.5 GHz, 6MB, 47W)
    -Windows 7 Professional 64 preinstalled through downgrade rights in Windows 8.1 Pro 64
    -Thinkpad W541 15.6" FHD (1920 x 1080), with WWAN
    -W540 NVIDIA Quadro K1100M 2G (or W540 NVIDIA Quadro K2100M 2G[add $250.00])
    -4GB PC3-12800 DDR3L SDRAM 1600MHz SODIMM (planning on uprgading to 16 or 32GB later)
    -Thinkpad W541 No Fingerprint Reader, 3+2BCP (not sure what that is, but....)
    -720p HD Camera
    -Internal RAID - Not Enabled to Not RAID Capable
    -500GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm, 2.5"
    -16GB M.2 Solid State Drive Double
    -DVD Recordable
    -6 Cell Li-Ion Cylindrical Battery 56.16Wh
    -Country Pack AG with Line cord & 170W AC adapter
    -Intel Dual Band Wireless 7260AC with Bluetooth 4.0
    -Integrated Mobile Broadband upgradable
    -1 Year Depot or Carry-in Warranty
    Ports: Thunderbolt, 2 USB 3.0, 2 USB 2.0, VGA, RJ-45, 4-in-1 card reader, Express Card, Smart Card (optional) (??? I didn't see the option, but oh well...), headphone/mic combo
    Audio: Stereo with Dolby® Home Theater®
    Web price: $1639.00
    Which is a better system/performance for the money? Which is better for moderate (2013 and earlier) gaming, video editing, XP mode, etc?
    Is the performance upgrade of the w541 over the t540p worth the money upgrade?
    Which will hold out better for 5-10 years? No CAD usage foreseen.  Would 32GB be necessary for the w541, or would 16GB be enough?
    The camera is something I would gladly do without; its presence is a drawback. Same for fingerprint reader.
    Thanks.
    (Edited to add)
    PS: If the t540p is the way to go, does it make sense, for a $55.00 price increase, to upgrade from a i5-4330m to an i7-4700mq? At that point, is the graphics card (Nvidia GT 730m) bottlenecking the processor, game, etc. so much that the CPU upgrade is a waste of money?

    I have the T540p with the i7-4700. It is a strong machine and a CPU upgrade to the 4700 is worth the $50. A 4700 will perform the same in either laptop.
    Grqphics cards are always the bottle neck. The GT730M can't do much so if graphics are a concern it's the W541. The W541 also has the new touch pad & thunderbolt, a bigger power supply and more of a workstation feel. That is attractive to me, but, if all you plan to do is spreadsheets and surf the T540p will go right through it.
    If it didn't break the budget I would do the W541 with the i7-4810 cpu and the K2100M. I would complain about the price but I think I'd be happier with that config over the next three years.
    Sixteen gig of memory should be good & focus on a fast boot drive.
    If you call in the order they may give a $50 discount, if you ask.

  • I use itunes on a Dell XPS502 with W7/64. In some cases have have problems to import CD's. The sound is very disturbed and the import need a lot more time than in normal cases. Is there a problem between itunes W7/64 or a known hardware issue?

    I use itunes on a Dell XPS502 with W7/64. In some cases have have problems to import CD's. The sound is very disturbed and the import need a lot more time than in normal cases. Is there a problem between itunes and W7/64 or a known hardware issue?
    Example-CD : "Tracy Chapman , Telling stories" is not able to import . I have more such negative cases. But in other cases it works fine and the sound is great.
    The firmware at the inbuild CD/DVD DS-6E2SH is the latest version.
    What can I do??

    hi b noir,
    I don't no about virtuel drives like you mententioned. In the mean time I have rebooted the XPS and run again the iTunes diagnostics. I think the back - chance in the registry was not ready to use.  Now there are another results. They are the same in case of a running CD or a not running CD. The difference in total is like before. It takes more time that iTunes reads the (bad) CD and at the there is no good sound. In both cases ( running or not running CD) iTunes diagnostics gives as a result :
    (the copie from ITunes shows the result of the not running CD from Tracy Chapman)
    Microsoft Windows 7 x64 Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)
    Dell Inc. Dell System XPS L502X
    iTunes 10.3.1.55
    QuickTime 7.6.9
    FairPlay 1.11.17
    Apple Application Support 1.5.2
    iPod Updater-Bibliothek 10.0d2
    CD Driver 2.2.0.1
    CD Driver DLL 2.1.1.1
    Apple Mobile Device 3.4.0.25
    Apple Mobile Device Treiber 1.55.0.0
    Bonjour 2.0.5.0 (214.3)
    Gracenote SDK 1.8.2.457
    Gracenote MusicID 1.8.2.89
    Gracenote Submit 1.8.2.123
    Gracenote DSP 1.8.2.34
    iTunes-Seriennummer 00D7B2B00CD25750
    Aktueller Benutzer ist kein Administrator.
    Aktuelles Datum und Uhrzeit sind 2011-06-11 19:33:22.
    iTunes befindet sich nicht im abgesicherten Modus.
    WebKit Accelerated Compositing ist aktiviert.
    HDCP wird unterstützt.
    Core Media wird unterstützt.
    Info zu Video-Anzeige
    NVIDIA, NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
    Intel Corporation, Intel(R) HD Graphics Family
    **** Info für externe Plug-Ins ****
    Keine externen Plug-Ins installiert.
    iPodService 10.3.1.55 (x64) arbeitet zurzeit.
    iTunesHelper 10.3.1.55 arbeitet zurzeit.
    Apple Mobile Device service 3.3.0.0 arbeitet zurzeit.
    **** CD/DVD-Laufwerkstests****
    LowerFilters: PxHlpa64 (2.0.0.0),
    UpperFilters: GEARAspiWDM (2.2.0.1),
    D: PLDS DVDRWBD DS-6E2SH, Rev CD11
    Audio-CD im Laufwerk
    11 Titel auf der CD gefunden, Spieldauer: 42:07 auf Audio-CD
    Titel 1, Startzeit: 00:02:00
    Titel 2, Startzeit: 03:59:47
    Titel 3, Startzeit: 07:19:27
    Titel 4, Startzeit: 11:31:30
    Titel 5, Startzeit: 15:31:50
    Titel 6, Startzeit: 20:07:50
    Titel 7, Startzeit: 24:27:15
    Titel 8, Startzeit: 27:49:10
    Titel 9, Startzeit: 32:41:25
    Titel 10, Startzeit: 35:29:65
    Titel 11, Startzeit: 38:38:00
    Audio-CD erfolgreich gelesen (Suche nach alter Firmware).
    Laufwerksgeschwindigkeit erfolgreich erkannt
    Die CDR-Geschwindigkeiten des Laufwerks sind:  4 10 16 24
    Die CDRW-Geschwindigkeiten des Laufwerks sind:  4
    Die DVDR-Geschwindigkeiten des Laufwerks sind:  4
    Die DVDRW-Geschwindigkeiten des Laufwerks sind:  4
    After starting the import it is going slower and slower. If it is helpful I can send you a soundfile with these distortions.
    best regards
    tcgerd

  • Why Mac pro is better & more expensive than IMac?!

    can you advice me on this:
    tell me which one is more practical and powerful for 3D rendering and animation?!  why?!
    and why Mac pro is more expensive than IMac?! even though numbers in IMac are higher than Mac pro.......
    IMac:
              - 27-inch      
              - 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
              - 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB
              - 2TB Serial ATA Drive
              - AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
    or
    Mac pro:
    Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)
    12GB (6X2GB)
    2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
    2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
    ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB
    One 18x SuperDrive

    Apparently you don't fathom or realize what I said:
    Better value: Mac Pro 6-core 3.33GHz. You can buy base and throw in W3680.
    You can buy a single 6-core like that from Apple and pay $900 more.
    I do not recommend 12-core.
    I do not recommend the slower 2.66 processor
    I do recommend avoiding the 2009 model.
    Better off starting with the 2.8 4-core and go from there.
    Ivy Bridge socket LGA2011 will have a lot of other features making them the "to die for" but no one knows and I for one would not want to be on cutting edge with any chipset or new revision. Seriously, Apple has always had issues with first silicon whether 2011 MBP or iMac or 2008/2009 Mac Pro. And always takes a couple OS updates. And then things break. And then software has to catch up.
    A slower 12-core is not going to future proof. It is going to cost more and not deliver.
    For last year we've all been seeing and saying 6 x 3.33.
    why I sent you link to MPG site.

  • Should I upgrade to Macericks now from 10.6.8 on my i-Mac(mid 2007, core 2 duo?). Will Mavericks be more secure than 10.6.8 ? 10.6.8 has been great, it runs great with all my apps but am concerned about future supportibility?

    Should I upgrade to Mavericks now from 10.6.8 (i-Mac, mid 2007, core 2 duo)? Will Mavericks be more secure than 10.6.8 ?  I have the latest version of 10.6.8 and have upgraded my memory to 4GB. This could be one reason for me to make the move now.
    10.6.8 has been great, it runs great with all my apps but am concerned about lack of support now. I know my PC apps will not work but maybe some apps that work now will "walk away" from 10.6.8 and then there's the security question of above.
    I am also concerned about iPhoto 9 transition to i-Photo 11 and compatibility of my Time Machine WD Passport HD (format: Mac OS Extended (Journaled) based on several questions in applicable forums.
    Thanks for your help in this important decision!

    If I were you I would stick with Snow Leopard. It's much better suited to your old hardware. That said:
    Upgrading from Snow Leopard to Lion or Mavericks
    To upgrade to Mavericks you must have Snow Leopard 10.6.8, Lion, or Mountain Lion installed. Purchase and download Mavericks (Free) from the App Store. Sign in using your Apple ID. The file is quite large, over 5 GBs, so allow some time to download. It would be preferable to use Ethernet because it is nearly four times faster than wireless.
         OS X Mavericks- System Requirements
           Macs that can be upgraded to OS X Mavericks
             1. iMac (Mid 2007 or newer) — Model Identifier 7,1 or later
             2. MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer) —
                 Model Identifier 5,1 or later
             3. MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
             4. MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer) — Model Identifier 2,1 or later
             5. Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
             6. Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
             7. Xserve (Early 2009) — Model Identifier 3,1 or later
    To find the model identifier open System Profiler in the Utilities folder. It's displayed in the panel on the right.
    Are my applications compatible?
             See App Compatibility Table — RoaringApps.
    Upgrading to Lion
    If your computer does not meet the requirements to install Mavericks, it may still meet the requirements to install Lion.
    You can purchase Lion at the Online Apple Store. The cost is $19.99 (as it was before) plus tax.  It's a download. You will get an email containing a redemption code that you then use at the Mac App Store to download Lion. Save a copy of that installer to your Downloads folder because the installer deletes itself at the end of the installation.
         Lion System Requirements
           1. Mac computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7,
               or Xeon processor
           2. 2GB of memory
           3. OS X v10.6.6 or later (v10.6.8 recommended)
           4. 7GB of available space
           5. Some features require an Apple ID; terms apply.

  • Screen images more saturated than prints

    Screen depiction of images more saturated than prints. I'd like to get the print images more in line with the screen images. Their brightness is pretty well matched. Same with contrast.
    I'm using
    MacBook Pro 2.16 intel core 2 duo
    Aperture
    proofing to Canon PR1 (paper I'm using)
    Color Synch Profile Canon PR 1
    Gamma 1.0
    Pentax k10d
    Canon Pixma ip6600d
    Color Option None
    Color Vivid yes
    Color LCD Display setting in display system setting.

    It sounds like you are doing everything correctly -- so the culprit may well be your printer, which depending on the number of inks etc may not have a full enough gamut to support what you see on screen. Maybe it's time to move to the Canon 9000?

Maybe you are looking for