IPhoto 6.0.3 (293) Performance Worse Than Any Other Version

Interesting. I have 9,990 photos and my iPhoto 6 just came to a crawl. I have 1.5GB of memory. Something is definitely wrong. When I start iPhoto it appears to behave normally for about 30 seconds.
I've read many of the other speed/performance/slow threads in this forum. Here's what I've tried:
I have all my Rolls collapsed. After doing a couple transactions (eg: scrolling up/down or editing one picture), iPhoto freezes.
When this happens I'll open Activity Monitor and find my dual CPUs pegged at about 97%.
I've rebuilt my library, my small thumbnails, my large thumbnails, loaded IPLM (iPhoto Library Manager) and rebuilt the library using its copy function, and I've even moved my library to another volume. Nothing has worked. I've even run Disk Warrior against my volume that hosts iPhoto, reset permissions and run Disk Utility and verified that the hard drive is OK. I've also removed my iPhoto preference file. Nothing has helped.
I'm beside myself.
I'm currently running a manual rebuild test (UGGGH!!!!!) to see it's a problem with my existing library's data (i.e. corruption?) or my instance of iPhoto.
(NOTE: a smaller, newer library helps but I don't want to lose my meta data. That's, frankly, the most important feature of iPhoto for my wife and me.)
I've never heard the fans on my Dual G4 PPC (mirror door model) run so loudly. Of course, I've rebooted several times too.
If anyone has any other suggestions, please let me know. I have a backup but I feer the backup contains the same, assumed, corrupt files as my active volume.
Dual 1.25GHz G4 PowerPC Mac OS X (10.4.6)

G4Monster:
Have you tried rebuilding the library with iPLM and it's File->Rebuild Library... menu option? That create a new, library, copying the files and rebuilding the database, etc.? Or is that what you meant by "using its copy function,"?
If you find you have to create new libraries in the end, there is a way to preserve the comments and keywords. See Tutorial #1 on how to preserve them.

Similar Messages

The quality of built-in camera on macbook pro with retina display is far worse than any other mac. Why?

I just got the new macbook pro with retina display like a week ago and I've been noticing that the quality of the built-in camera on it is so bad.
It's even worse than my 2009 iMac or my sister's 2012 13" macbook pro. I don't get why this is a facetime HD built-in camera when i can obviously see that is not even near HD. Or is it just my computer. Do i have to bring it to the apple store??

it's advertised 720p so yes it is the same as all the other MBP. it may just be the resolution of your monitor is stretching the pixels. Don't worry about bringing it to the apple store.

Firefox is supposed to be faster - it's far slower than any other version & I'm going to back to Explorer - this is too much & it keeps crashing!. Is anything going to be sorted soon?

It is now so slow to load pages - I can have coffee and then maybe a page has loaded. Otherwise it's "embarrassed" because it cannot load pages/ bookmarks. This version is terrible - can you not put back the previous version till you've sorted out the problems?

I don't know anything about that. But I googled it and found this post in another forum -
"I have more info on the issue at hand.
The RDTSC instruction has, until recently, been an excellent high-resolution, low-overhead way of getting CPU timing information. With the advent of multi-core/hyperthreaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and "hibernating" operating systems, RDTSC often no longer provides reliable results. The issue has two components: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no longer any promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. So, you can no longer get reliable timestamp values unless you lock your program to using a single CPU. Even then, the CPU speed may change due to power-saving measures taken by the OS or BIOS, or the system may be hibernated and later resumed (resetting the time stamp counter).
I might be understanding this wrong but... Basically both RDTSC and QPC are used to time code in time-sensitive programs. However, RDTSC might be inaccurate in above described situations. I also might be wrong about this but I believe QPC has something to do with the HPET high precision event timer. Which is a more accurate timer.
So this might explain why RDTSC and QPC has a delta that is too high. And if all of what I said above is true, then this error is benign."
This signature left intentionally blank.

I ask for help, I can not cancel a monthly subscription to Adobe! contrary to the tutorial does not appear scribed CANCEL PLAN on my page management plan, is not worse than any serial number of my subscription, where is it? how can I cancel monthly charg

I ask for help, I can not cancel a monthly subscription to Adobe.
contrary to the tutorial does not appear scribed "CANCEL PLAN" on my page management plan, is not worse than any serial number of my subscription, where is it? how can I cancel monthly charge?

Just to clarify: This is a user to user Forum, so you are not really addressing Adobe here, even though some Adobe employees thankfully have been dropping by.
Have you done a Forum search?
How can I delete my account? There is no "cancel plan" in my creative cloud free membership.
Contact Customer Care

Is the macbook pro much better than any other laptop?

I am currently wanting to buy a laptop, I am deciding whether to buy a macbook pro or just a regular laptop. Is it really worth it to spend so much more?
Thank you! ~ mtumbler

Don't forget where you're asking that question.
Since nearly all people here have Macs, we obviously felt they were worth the price. "Much better than any other laptop" is a fairly subjective statement. All the major manufacturers have excellent high-end options. When comparing prices, you need to compare similar specifications and quality. You can certainly get cheaper PC computers, but similarly spec'd machines with similar build quality are generally around the same price (and actually sometimes somewhat higher).
The areas that most of us would agree puts Apple at the top are OS X, quality/design, and customer service. Only Macs can run OS X. For those of us that use OS X, we typically prefer it over Windows (by quite a bit). However, this isn't always a positive for someone moving over from Windows. There is a little bit of a learning curve. If you are going to need to be able to do everything you want, you need to understand that it might take a little time to figure everything out. You can install Windows alongside the Mac OS to help make the transition a little easier, but that requires that you purchase a copy of Windows. So far as quality and design... Apple has always been a leader in this area. However, as I had mentioned earlier, most major manufacturers have caught up in this area... at least with respect to their high-end offerings. It's really a matter of preference in terms of which you like more. No one offers the same level of customer service that you'll get from Apple. No other manufacturer has retail stores like Apple where you can go in with your machine and have someone (who knows about Apple products) check out your machine on the spot. Their phone support is also excellent and their user support community (where you're at now) is second to none.
So... most of us would agree that we feel Apple products are "better". But if you were to go to a typica PC forum and ask the same question, you'll find people who would argue fanatically that they're not. The reality is that there isn't that much of a difference in the hardware. You need to decide if something like the OS (which you probably don't have much experience using), design, and support are important to you.

The sound of the ringtone is of lower quality than any other. I've tested it, and its happens to more people. What's it's the solution? Can I communicate this problem to apple?

The sound of the ringtone is of lower quality than any other. I've tested it, and its happens to more people. What's it's the solution? Can I communicate this problem to apple?

You can let Apple know here - http://www.apple.com/feedback/

Camera Raw 6.1pre - scrolling performance worse than in CR6 for me

Hi
I like the quality of the new processing in CR6, but the performance is much worse than in CS4/CR5.x. This is especially annoying when you try to scroll in a Raw file using the hand-tool. But then I saw the 6.1 prerelease announced containing "performance enhancements designed to improve the responsiveness of the controls and the scrolling mechanism relative to Camera Raw 6.0". Happily I immediately decided to give the new prerelease a try...
But unfortunately I don't see a performance gain when scrolling in CR6.1pre. It is actually worse for me in 6.1 than it was in 6.0. It is now almost impossible to scroll out to the corners of a Raw file using the hand-tool. It fells like it get stuck. And I know never know if I have actually have reached a corner or it is just stuck somewhere on the way out to it. So now if I want to go to a corner, I find it much easier to zoom out by double clicking the hand, and then zoom into the corner by clicking the magnify tool in the corner.
But the new lens correction is great ! :-)
Win XP Pro x64 Edition.
/Stig

Stig N wrote:
If you double-click you open CR hosted by Photoshop, ie. 64 bit (Or at least that is the default, you might be able to change it in the settings). But if you right-click a raw file in Bridge and choose "Open in Camera Raw" it is hosted by Bridge.
Oh? Was not aware of this; and, come to think of it, I cannot see the reasoning behind not always opening in the faster/better mode.
Or am I missing something?

MSI 8800gts performing worse than my friends 8600gt

I have a 8800gts 320 with a anthlon 6000+, 2 gigs of RAM, 610w power supply.. and in cod4 Im getting FPS drops while my friend is sitting next to me running smoothly on a 8600gt 256 and anthlon x2 4200+ 2 gigs of RAM.. Im positive my setup should be running better than his, and I have the latest drivers, 6 pin is plugged in.
I took off antialiasing and my frame drops went away, so it seems like theres more of a load on my vid card than there should be.

Quote from: Karst on 22-January-13, 06:58:50
Mobo - EVGA 780i Sli Nforce
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfgang 3.0ghz (with aftermarket heatsink)
Ram - 4GB DDR2 Gskill 1066
Here is my problem, the MSI 660 Ti is performing the same, or worse, than my 260 GTX.
GTX 660 does not fit with your 6 years old config.
Your mainboard, processor and RAM are a bottleneck for your GPU.
Nforce 780i - released 6 years ago
Core 2 Duo E8400 - released 5 years ago
Gskill DDR2-1066 - overvolted DDR2-800 modules, released 7 years ago.

Official Apple reseller says "iPhone 5s's camera is much worse than the other"

Hi Apple support and fans,
I am writing to ask you and maybe get Apple's attention to what happened to me. I bought an iPhone 5s 8 days ago. I bought it from official Apple reseller in Warsaw, the capital city of Poland. And then my adventures began.
First, the plug is British, not Polish, because as the reseller said "we have some iPhone not from official distribution, but it will work". Because I needed to buy an iPhone5s fast, I accepted that. However, the question is still there - is it legal to sell British iPhones "from unofficial distribution channel" in Poland?
Second, and more important, my iPhone 5s makes horrible blurred pictures. I mean they are really blurred... I read all the posts on this forum and I tried everything. Finally I decided to visit the reseller and here is what their representative said: "These pictures are totally fine. They are blurred, as this is not a professional camera". Wow! What a discovery. I know that this is not a professional camera, but I know how photos from an iPhone (4 and 4s) might look like. So I replied that something is strange and I wanted to give my iPhone back to check it (under warranty). The representative replied: "We will not take it, and I'm telling you the pictures are all fine. The camera in iPhone 5s is much worse than it was in iPhone 4s and hence the blurred photos. Just live with that".
And now my questions:
1. Is it true that the pictures must be blurred in iPhone 5s, just because it works so? I can't bvelieve it.
2. Isn't the fact that they sell iPhones from "unofficial channels" the reason why they don't want to take the iPhone under warranty?
If anyone from Apple wants to take a closer look at this issue and maybe discover some "strange" actions from Polish official Apple reseller, I'm open to provide you much more details on the purchase, the store location, etc.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Kuba

iPhones are ONLY sold by Carriers and Apple an Apple reseller is unlikely to be authorised for iPhones and certainly would not sell an iphone with a foreign plug
You have clearly purchased a grey import a genuine Polish sourced iPhone sold by a legitimate iPhone reseller would have the correct plug for the Country
Big issue you have is warranty you need to take to an Apple authorised repairer
https://locate.apple.com/pl/pl/
luckily as long as iPhone came from UK you do have warranty ,EU is one "country" for Apple warranty purposes

Why Oracle than any other database?

Just needs the inputs .........
What makes Oracle database better than other.
What are the features that makes Oracle as the preferred database.
Recently One Pre-Sales guy from Sybase asked me why Oracle and not Sybase or any other Db.
How to handle such questions......

Lock escalation. There is no such concept in Oracle. Can you lock a million rows in Sybase using a row lock alone and still allow concurrency for other sessions to also lock a million rows? If you commit a million row transaction, how long does it take in Sybase? In Oracle, locking one row or a million rows has the same overheads - there are no overheads. Commit a transaction, be that a one row transaction or a million row transaction, it is equally fast (and usually sub-second).
In Sybase readers block writers and writers block readers. Which means that for readers not to be blocked, they need to read uncommitted (dirty) data. In Oracle, readers never block writers and writers never block readers - and the data delivered via a read is always consistent.
Scalability. No other vendor has anything like the shared everything cluster technology from Oracle called Real Application Clusters.
And this is just scratching the surface. Sybase is technically inferior to Oracle. And that is just a plain fact.
Once sat with a couple of Ingres engineers that were flown out from the UK to fix some serious bugs. Invariable we got talking about db features and they "us too" when I mentioned an Oracle feature. Only I knew that they had no real concept of what the Oracle feature entails and that the so-called equivalent Ingres feature does maybe at best 50% of what the Oracle feature does.
So I showed them instead something simple. Or so I thought. I did a 'SELECT count(*) FROM table' on our data warehouse platform (and old HP box) on the largest fact table. It returned the answer of 700+ million rows in far less than 30 seconds.
Their reaction? First stunned and then the question, "Is this a required feature for the database?", implying that it too can be done (hacked?) in Ingres, should the customer require such a fast select on such a huge table.
No idiot - it is not a requirement. It is simply how Oracle works out of the box when used correctly.
IMO, it is not even worth getting into these feature vs. feature matches with these 3rd party database experts. They do not want to understand what makes Oracle technically superior than their product.
Read the Sybase DBA manual.. or Ingres DBA manual.. or SQL-Server DBA manual. Look at the sections that deal with performance tips and hints. It is fricken scary. And stuff that you will never ever have to deal with in Oracle as it is simply not a problem in Oracle.

Anyone else haveing issues where Motion 5 performs worse than Motion 4?

I'm having an issue where even simple particle emitters playback slowly. I can create the same simple effect in 4 and it plays back in real time.
I even saved a test file in 4 (which ran real time), and when I open it in 5 it plays back slower. What gives?

I´m having a strange issues with Motion 5 performance:
In my iMac 2010 (i3 @ 3,06 ghz, Radeon 4670 256 mb and 8 gb) Motion 5 is about 20-25% faster than Motion 4.
For example, when rendering the PulseHD Open Motion 4 takes 2:30 mins and Motion 5 takes 2:00 mins.
The strange results come from my Macbook Pro 2010 (i5 @ 2,4 ghz, Geforce GT 330m and 8 gb also):
With the same template this computer takes 3:20 mins in Motion 4 and about 6:30 mins in Motion 5!!!! So near the double.
Even more strange: if I make a ram preview in Motion 5 with this same template and settings that I used in the final render it only takes 2:51 mins and Motion 4 is slower, because it takes 3:25 mins!!!!!!
I forgot to say that in all the cases the render quality was set to normal and motion blur was turned on with 8 samples.
So, it´s clear that Motion 5 needs an update as does FCP X, because in my computers it crashes a lot.

E3000 firmware 1.0.03 performance worse than 1.0.02

I upgraded to 1.0.03 last night and the performance is worse over the 5ghz band on my Linksys Media Extender. On Monday I could watch HDTV over the network. I upgraded last night to 1.0.03 and now I get network problems and dropped frames. The signal went from about 75% to 50%. I'd really like to get 1.0.02 back on there. Any way to get it?

I think it is not possible to downgrade the firmware as the old firmware is not available on the website.
Try changing the wireless settings on the router.
Open the setup page of the router. Click on Wireless tab. Change the SSID for 5 GHz wireless band. Change the channel width to 40 MHz only and channel to 161-5.5805 GHz.
Do not change the SSID of 2.4 GHz wireless signal otherwise the Cisco connect software will stop working.
Keep the Network mode on Mixed for both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz wireless band. Save the settings. Click on Wireless security sub tab. Set the security mode to WPA/WPA2 mixed mode and note down the password of wireless network.
Click on wireless MAC filter sub tab and make sure that it is disabled.
Click on Advanced wireless settings sub tab. Change the Beacon interval to 75, RTS threshold to 2307 and fragmentation threshold to 2306. Save the settings. Save the settings.
Go to the Administration tab and disable the UPnP.
See if that works.

Infinity HH3 wireless performance - worse than HH1...

Back in May we signed up for the 6 month free Infinity trial.
Whilst wireless speeds in the room in which the hub is placed are OK (approx 30-35mbps), speeds throughout the rest of the house are much lower.
We have a TV with wireless connection on which we want to watch using iPlayer. We have also tried the Wii and PS3. iPlayer worked fine (on standard resolution - no chance on HD!) when we had the HH1, but with the HH3 we get buffering and interruptions even on low resolution. Speedtest on a tablet next to the TV shows speeds of less than 1 up to about 8, yet even when the higher speeds are shown we still get occational buffering on low res.
The HH3 is in the same room that the HH1 used to be (albeit not identical positions due to cabling restrictions) - and unfortunately this is at the opposite end of the house to the living room and TV.
Is there anything that we can do to improve the wireless reception? I'm thinking of channel settings or something to boost the signal. I can't easily move the HH3 without having a lot of trailing wires, and am not willing to pay out for new devices. I'm fairly technically competent, but am a novice in terms of WiFi.
We have a couple of months left on the free trial. If we can't sort out something, then I think we'll be going back to the old service at a third of the price of Infinity. At least we can then watch iPlayer again.
Thanks.

If you are paying for a fast connection, then to make full use of the speed, you are better using Ethernet cables or powerline adapters.
There is some wireless help here.
Wireless connection problems
and some alternatives here
Network connection problems and possible solutions
There are some useful help pages here, for BT Broadband customers only, on my personal website.
BT Broadband customers - help with broadband, WiFi, networking, e-mail and phones.

HomeHub 5 broadband performance worse than OpenRea...

I have been running with an OpenReach modem and HomeHub 3 since I first got infinity. Beguiled by promises of superior WiFi reach and performance I paid to upgrade to HomeHub5. Initial impressions were that WiFi performance was no better. I had split the 2.4GHz and 5GHz channels onto separate SSIDs but was startled a few days later to find the box had just turned off the 2.4 signal with not so much as a by-your-leave.
I am a member of the SamKnows community which runs my uploads and downloads through a separate box and measures the performance. This information is used to supply the powers-that-be with information on actual broadband performance as opposed to marketing claims and I get a monthly report of my own system performance.
On the critical broadband measures - Downstream throughput, Upstream throughput and Latency - the switch shows up on the latest SamKnows report as a degrade of performance. As shown here:
So the question is. What, if anything, can I do to tune the performamce of the modem inside HomeHub 5. Or do I just have toi accept the loss of broadband performance as the price to pay for the unidentified improvement in wi-fi?

you cannot 'tune' the HH5 modem
can you go to troubleshooting then helpdesk and post the stats please
If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side of the post.
If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’.

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!

IPhoto 6.0.3 (293) Performance Worse Than Any Other Version

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for