Is 1.3 Bios really better than 1.52B?? Neo2 Board and Some Observations!

Hi All... I read this post on the forums and it got me thinking and i did some fiddling and made some observations..
This is whith regard to the 1.3Bios being better than the 1.52B Bios.. because it would let you run in turbo mode...
Ok i've spent the last 60mins testing and i came up with the following..
1.3BIOS
With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
The only thing that was noticable was that MSI core-center overclocks the CPU a lil more than what is set in BIOS..
1.52B BIOS
With the 1.52B Bios... u can change the memory timings and it does show in CPU-Z and it makes a massive difference with Sisoft sandra.. 250mbps more..
What u set in the bios .. u get with the 1.52B.. Corecenter does'nt mess around and overclock it more..
Going from Slow to Turbo did give me an increase in scores.. slightly..
Im now running Ultra-Turbo.. and i get a sisoft bandwith score of 5250Mbps at 3.21G..
CONCLUSION
So infact i think the 1.52B is better than the 1.3 . I don't have a Radeon so i donno how these bios's work with the cards cause i've read about some problems... I'm getting one soon so 'ill post some info about that in a fortnight..
I personally think this board is great.. atleast the one i have.. never had a problem.. had it for 3 months.. i have a revision 1.. no DOT sticker.. and just the Neo2-S version... I've used Spectec 333 on this board too (dual) had no problems..
Wish i had some DDR-500 so i could test whether this board can do 1:1 above 250...whether it has a 1:1 limitation above 285 like some other boards.. that is my only doubt.. anywayz.. i hope atleast some of u are sailing as smoothly with this board as i have..
Get some nice ram .. this Twinmos Dual channel kit DDR400 with the Twinmos chips are really great.. and i recommend it..

Quote
Originally posted by DeReD
1.3BIOS
With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
That´s wrong. RAM-Settings are displayed fine. Turbo does make a BIG difference in scores. About 15% more performance. In Games and in benchmarks like 3dmark and sandra, too.

Similar Messages

Mac got really slow after updation of os X and some application misbehaving and not able to open them.

Mac got really slow after updation of os X and some application misbehaving and not able to open them.

Apply the combo update
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1640

Is rank() really better than rownum for top-n-queries?

Several sources say that for Oracle databases rank() should be used instead of 'rownum <= n' for top-n-queries. But here we have an application, where we a lot of top-n queries are executed on a big table with several million rows and rank() has a quite bad performance. I get much better results when I use a query with rownum <= n but the programmer of the application doesn't want to change it in the software because of those articles about rank() and rownum. I wonder, whether it is possible, to find a better form of the rank()-query or an additional index, that gives me the same performance.
To explain my case I created the following example (if you try it, be aware that depending on the size of your dba_objects view you might need up to half a gig free space in your tablespace for this example).
create table big_objects
as
select
ascii(m.alpha)*100000+o.object_id object_id,
o.owner owner,
o.object_type,
m.alpha||'_'||o.object_name object_name,
sysdate-400+mod(100*object_id+99*ascii(m.alpha),365)+24/(o.object_id+ascii(m.alpha)) created,
o.status
from
(select distinct
upper(substr(object_name,1,1)) alpha
from
sys.dba_objects
where
upper(substr(object_name,1,1)) between 'A' and 'Z') m,
sys.dba_objects o
order by
object_name;
create index bigindex_1 on big_objects (owner, object_type, created);
analyze table big_objects compute statistics;
So my table looks a bit like dba_objects but with much more rows and I made a synthetic "created" date which is more similar to my real case, where top-n means a date selection of the newest records from a certain type.
Here is the size of the segments on an nearly empty 11gR2 database:
select segment_name, bytes, blocks from sys.dba_segments where segment_name like 'BIG%'
SEGMENT_NAME BYTES BLOCKS
BIGINDEX_1 75497472 9216
BIG_OBJECTS 142606336 17408
On my database the example table has approx. 1,9 Mio rows:
select count(*) from big_objects;
COUNT(*)
1884246
and some 1,4% of those rows have owner = 'SYS' and object_type = 'INDEX'
select
count(*)
from big_objects
where owner = 'SYS'
and object_type = 'INDEX';
COUNT(*)
25896
But I want to find only the 10 newest indexes for the owner SYS. I think the typical rank() approach would be:
select
owner,
object_type,
object_name,
object_id,
status,
created
from
( select
owner,
object_type,
object_name,
object_id,
status,
created,
rank() over (order by created desc) rnk
from
big_objects
where
owner = 'SYS'
and object_type = 'INDEX')
where rnk <= 10
order by created asc;
OWNER OBJECT_TYPE OBJECT_NAME OBJECT_ID STATUS CREATED
SYS INDEX B_COLLELEMIND 6600515 VALID 15.04.2010 19:05:55
SYS INDEX V_I_WRI$_OPTSTAT_IND_OBJ#_ST 8600466 VALID 15.04.2010 19:09:03
SYS INDEX G_I_RLS 7100375 VALID 15.04.2010 19:23:55
SYS INDEX V_I_DIR$SERVICE_UI 8600320 VALID 15.04.2010 19:31:33
SYS INDEX L_I_TSM_DST2$ 7600308 VALID 15.04.2010 19:36:26
SYS INDEX L_I_IDL_UB11 7600235 VALID 15.04.2010 19:57:34
SYS INDEX V_I_VIEWTRCOL1 8600174 VALID 15.04.2010 20:19:21
SYS INDEX L_I_TRIGGER2 7600162 VALID 15.04.2010 20:31:39
SYS INDEX L_I_NTAB1 7600089 VALID 15.04.2010 21:35:53
SYS INDEX B_I_SYN1 6600077 VALID 15.04.2010 22:08:07
10 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.22
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 2911012437
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1427 | 188K| 1400 (1)| 00:00:17 |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 1427 | 188K| 1400 (1)| 00:00:17 |
|* 2 | VIEW | | 1427 | 188K| 1399 (1)| 00:00:17 |
|* 3 | WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK | | 1427 | 79912 | 1399 (1)| 00:00:17 |
| 4 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BIG_OBJECTS | 1427 | 79912 | 1398 (0)| 00:00:17 |
|* 5 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | BIGINDEX_1 | 1427 | | 9 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
2 - filter("RNK"<=10)
3 - filter(RANK() OVER ( ORDER BY INTERNAL_FUNCTION("CREATED") DESC )<=10)
5 - access("OWNER"='SYS' AND "OBJECT_TYPE"='INDEX')
Statistics
1 recursive calls
0 db block gets
25870 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
1281 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
524 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
2 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed
As from the index only the first two columns are used, all the 25896 records that I found above are read and sorted just to find the ten newest ones. Many unnecessary blocks are read and luckily all needed database blocks were in memory already. In our real case quite often a lot of physical reads are performed, which makes the performance of the application even worse.
In my following example with a "rownum <= 10" all three columns of the index are used and the number of block gets is much, much smaller than in the rank() example.
select
owner,
object_type,
object_name,
object_id,
status,
created
from
big_objects
where
(owner, object_type, created)
in
( select
owner,
object_type,
created
from
( select /*+ first_rows(10) */
owner,
object_type,
created
from
big_objects
where
owner = 'SYS'
and object_type = 'INDEX'
order by
owner,
object_type,
created desc
where rownum <= 10
order by created asc;
OWNER OBJECT_TYPE OBJECT_NAME OBJECT_ID STATUS CREATED
SYS INDEX B_COLLELEMIND 6600515 VALID 15.04.2010 19:05:55
SYS INDEX V_I_WRI$_OPTSTAT_IND_OBJ#_ST 8600466 VALID 15.04.2010 19:09:03
SYS INDEX G_I_RLS 7100375 VALID 15.04.2010 19:23:55
SYS INDEX V_I_DIR$SERVICE_UI 8600320 VALID 15.04.2010 19:31:33
SYS INDEX L_I_TSM_DST2$ 7600308 VALID 15.04.2010 19:36:26
SYS INDEX L_I_IDL_UB11 7600235 VALID 15.04.2010 19:57:34
SYS INDEX V_I_VIEWTRCOL1 8600174 VALID 15.04.2010 20:19:21
SYS INDEX L_I_TRIGGER2 7600162 VALID 15.04.2010 20:31:39
SYS INDEX L_I_NTAB1 7600089 VALID 15.04.2010 21:35:53
SYS INDEX B_I_SYN1 6600077 VALID 15.04.2010 22:08:07
10 rows selected.
Elapsed: 00:00:00.03
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 3360237620
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 10 | 760 | 17 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 1 | SORT ORDER BY | | 10 | 760 | 17 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 2 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | | |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 10 | 760 | 17 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 4 | VIEW | VW_NSO_1 | 10 | 200 | 2 (50)| 00:00:01 |
| 5 | HASH UNIQUE | | 10 | 200 | 4 (25)| 00:00:01 |
|* 6 | COUNT STOPKEY | | | | | |
| 7 | VIEW | | 11 | 220 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 8 | INDEX RANGE SCAN DESCENDING| BIGINDEX_1 | 1427 | 28540 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 9 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | BIGINDEX_1 | 3 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | BIG_OBJECTS | 3 | 168 | 6 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
6 - filter(ROWNUM<=10)
8 - access("OWNER"='SYS' AND "OBJECT_TYPE"='INDEX')
9 - access("OWNER"="OWNER" AND "OBJECT_TYPE"="OBJECT_TYPE" AND "CREATED"="CREATED")
Statistics
1 recursive calls
0 db block gets
26 consistent gets
0 physical reads
0 redo size
1281 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
524 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
2 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
1 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
10 rows processed
I made this comparison with the Oracle versions 10.2 and 11.2 and the result was more or less the same. How can I change the rank() query in a way that only the small number of really needed blocks are read from the database?

this was exactly the hint, I was looking for. Generally speaking hints are not the preferred way to go to tune queries. They can have nasty side-effects when data changes.
Now the rank()-query is similar fast and much better to read than my fast one with three nested SELECTs.
Your rownum query was needlessly complicated, and could be simplified to:
select owner, object_type, object_name, object_id, status, created
from (select owner, object_type, created
      from big_objects
      where owner = 'SYS' and
            object_type = 'INDEX'
      order by created desc)
where rownum <= 10
order by created ascand very likely get the same speed.
One more question. How did you format those sql queries and results. When I copy/paste them into the editor of forums.oracle.com the format allways gets lost.To preserve formatting use {noformat}{noformat} before and after the section you want ot keep formatted. In general, if you want to see how someone generated an effect, reply to the post and hit the quote original icon. You will see all the formatting codes used in the original.
John

Is Logic Expres 9 really better than 8?

I've got LE8 because I still have a Power PC iMac. I am planning on getting a new computer in the next few weeks. Should I upgrade to LE 9? Does the new version fix bugs? Is it worth the extra $100 for the upgrade?
Thanks

I think you can't say LE9 is better than LE8, because it depends on what you're doing with it.
For example, if you're editing recorded (live, not MIDI) music with it, then you're life will probably get better when using LE9, because of Flextime. Another big pro for me are the guitar/bass amp simulators and fx.
If you're not going to use the above mentioned features, than I don't think it's worth the investment for you.

Is Windows really better than a mac at running APPLE Software!!?!

Up until a month ago I was a whole hearted Windows user but after a play and some heavy convincing I decided that I would invest in my first Mac; a top-end Mac Mini with and upgraded 2gb RAM...great I thought!!!!
Once I got it set up and updated (running OS X 10.4.9) & Itunes 7.1.1 I set-up my ipod with Itunes and all could not be smoother!!
Too good to be true.....YES!
I connected my Ipod up and it showed up on the Desktop...great...so I loaded Itunes and it wasnt there?!? So after some searching on the Net I reset my ipod....and hurray it now shows up in Itunes....however when it goes to sync I get a message saying that "not everything can be synched because the software on my ipod is too old"....it does however still show as synching a vast majority....however when unplugging the ipod the files its just spent the last 5 minutes synching arent there!! Confusing!! So I go to the summary page as instructed and try to do either a software update or a restore but the options are greyed out!?!! So I reformat the Ipod....still the same problem!!!
As a last ditch effort I plug it back into my windows machine....up pops some message boxes saying that it is in Recovery Mode, Do you want to restore? Do you want to Sync? And hey presto....My music is back and everything is working again!!!
I was planning on getting rid of my PC and getting another Mac but now I am wandering whether I need to keep it to update my ipod and anything else I find!
Anyone had any similar problems or know what my issue with Itunes on the Mac is?! I find it quite odd how it is smoother on the PC than on the MAC as it is Apple Software!!!!

I managed to resolve this problem by completing an Archive Install of Mac OS X as one of the Itunes Kernel files was corrupted.

Is verizon really better than AT&T?

I've seen so many ads tha say verizon is better and more reliable than AT&T. Is this really true? I've compared coverage maps, and they looks almost the same, except for LTE coverage, but as far as 3G goes, they look about the same. What makes verizon so much better?

pzjagd1 wrote:
How does JD Powers rate customer satisfaction (not coverage)? I can't imagine it being very high for Verizon.
hard to believe after reading the forums, but Verizon consistently is ranked highest in customer satisfaction of the big 4 US cellular companies. But do remember, what you see in the forum is only a small sampling of the worst problems that happen and represent a fraction of 1% of customers. Therefore it is not a scientific sample to judge the whole.

Is a text editor really better than Dreamweaver?

Hi Everyone,
I've been looking through several different web design forums
and I'm now stuck with a question. Why do some people swear by
using only a text editor to put their website together and totally
discount programs such as Dreamweaver? I find this quite strange
because a website amongst other things is a highly visual
experience usually not showing a single line of code to the end
user. I get the impression that some people feel that Dreamweaver
is beneath them as they are "highly skilled coders" and only
amateurs use WYSIWYGs! Is it just me or am I correct in thinking
there is an element of snobbery here? To me it seems that
Dreamweaver has advantages in abundance and for the so called
hardcore coders there's even a code view which is much more
powerful than a simple text editor. One final thing, I see that
people complain about so called bad code that Dreamweaver writes.
Is it true that Dreamweaver writes bad code and if so what's bad
about it?
Many thanks, I'll be fascinated to read your
responses.

Let's see entire sites, good-sized professional ones. :-)
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate
Worksheet
"Murray *ACE*" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good idea, Patty. Let's see some of the "wouldn't touch
DW with a 10-foot
> pole" pages that have been created....
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Adobe Community Expert
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
>
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
> ==================
>
>
> "P@tty Ayers ~ACE"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This question is asked a lot. The answers are:
>>
>> -- No, a text editor isn't just as good. There are
lots of extremely
>> useful things DW does that a text editor can't do.
>>
>> -- No, the recent versions of Dreamweaver actually
write very good code
>> in general.
>>
>> -- In response to "only amateurs use [Dreamweaver
instead of a text
>> editor]" - please show me just 1 full-time
professional web developer
>> responsible for creating and maintaining sites who
uses only a text
>> editor. Just 1. You won't be able to, because there
isn't one. Not one
>> with a job, anyway. :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
>> Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
>> Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate
Worksheet
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> "In at the deep end"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> I've been looking through several different web
design forums and I'm
>>> now
>>> stuck with a question. Why do some people swear
by using only a text
>>> editor to
>>> put their website together and totally discount
programs such as
>>> Dreamweaver? I
>>> find this quite strange because a website
amongst other things is a
>>> highly
>>> visual experience usually not showing a single
line of code to the end
>>> user. I
>>> get the impression that some people feel that
Dreamweaver is beneath
>>> them as
>>> they are "highly skilled coders" and only
amateurs use WYSIWYGs! Is it
>>> just me
>>> or am I correct in thinking there is an element
of snobbery here? To me
>>> it
>>> seems that Dreamweaver has advantages in
abundance and for the so called
>>> hardcore coders there's even a code view which
is much more powerful
>>> than a
>>> simple text editor. One final thing, I see that
people complain about so
>>> called
>>> bad code that Dreamweaver writes. Is it true
that Dreamweaver writes bad
>>> code
>>> and if so what's bad about it?
>>>
>>> Many thanks, I'll be fascinated to read your
responses.
>>>
>>
>

Is Apple RAM really better than others?

I believe i may be having memory issues. I have a Spring 2011 iMac. Came with 2 sticks totaling 4G. I replaced with 16G of Corsair. After intermittent lookups I removed half (8G) and things got better but still the occasional FREEZE. I still have Apple care so I took it in. Apple will not even test the memory if it isn't Apple memory. I just found Apple memory for about $58 for 8G. Should I replace my memory with the Apple RAM? The original RAM looks like this:
What the heck is this brand?
I was thinking if I could get 2 Apple 4G sticks and use the original 4G plus the new 8G, I would have a nice 12G of memory. I use FinalCut X a lot and extra memory always helps. Any suggestions?
Thanks

Apple has been using Hynix RAM for years.
iMac's are not all that picky about brand, but they are very picky about the RAM spec's.
as per > iMac (Mid 2011): Memory specifications your 2011 iMac uses PC3-10600 1333 MHz modules.
If the Corsair RAM Modules that you bought are the correct specs? Then you should have no problem install it along with the original factory 4GB and running a total of 20GB.
I would suspect that you are having one of three different problems.
1. The Corsair RAM is not the correct spec and while it works, it is causing errors and does not work when matched up with the factory RAM.
2. The Corsair RAM is the correct spec, but one of the modules is bad. (noting that: the way your holding that Hynix module is liable to damage it)
3. You are not pushing hard enough to fully seat the modules in the slots. (try pushing real hard on each module with both thumbs as you install them)
Going on that I would install the factory modules back in the original slots that they came in and test the iMac. Then if the Corsair modules are the correct spec, install them in the empty slots and test the iMac.
Then if you are still having a problem..? Like many other RAM suppliers, Corsair does have a life time warranty.

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.

HT4623 This really ***** that they sent out and update to the iPhone ISO6 and I can't send or receive pics! Being that its apple you would think they would know better than to send out a bad update like this! I'm paying for a service and I can even use it

This really ***** that they sent out and update to the iPhone ISO6 and I can't send or receive pics! Being that its apple you would think they would know better than to send out a bad update like this! I'm paying for a service and I can even use now!!! I'm very upset! Think about canceling my iPhone 5 order! This is terrible!

Wahhhhhhhhhh! Wahhhhhhhhhh!
Are you over your little tantrum now? Do you want help you would like to continue to act like a toddler?
If you want help, try telling us what happens when trying to send pics. Any errors?
If you want to whine... go somewhere else.

Creating something better than Photoshop CC ?

The basic CC concept just doesn't work for many people, including myself. Bottom line: there must be a perpetual license option for a basic photo image editing program. For many photographers, Photoshop Elements just isn't robust enough. My guess is that other companies will jump into this huge new market, but that's going to take time.
It looks like Adobe is the only company in the position to produce a solution in the short term. So let's start there.
Over at the Kelby Blog and NAPP (the "Photoshop Guys," NAPP memebers and Blog contributors) they are actually working on a product concept to present to Adobe in response to CC. It's initially being called "LightShop" and its basic premise is to be a stripped-down Photoshop CC that integrates with Lightroom. It will have minimal Type, no 3D, no video, and less special effects and other bloat -- just a clear Lightroom-like interface that is smooth and fast. Most important, it sells as a perpetual license like Lightroom, for under $200. This concept sounds interesting -- if you're into Lightroom. I'm not.
Another idea is for Adobe to offer something like a Photoshop Elements "Extended Edition." Now that they have killed the Standard Edition of Photoshop, a product like that would not encroach upon the now professional market focus of Photoshop CC. It would be relatively easy to produce because most of the code is already in Photoshop Elements for more advanced features -- it's just turned off. ACR already comes with Elements, and Bridge could be included as before. If some of the deficiencies of standard Elements could be addressed, and some of the consumer oriented bling thrown out, then it could be ideal for amateur to semi-pro photographers. Photoshop plug-ins would work as they do now. Sell a perpetual license for under $200, and I think a lot of non-CC customers would be happy. An upgrade from CS3 onwards would be great too, for maybe $100.
But exactly what features would be best for a Photoshop CC alternative product? Is 16-bit necessary if you are global-editing RAW in ACR or Lightroom? Can you really tell the difference in a print or on the Web? What about Blend Modes -- do we need that many? How about just one sharpening filter -- the upcoming version of Smart Sharpen?

You bring up a great point. Lets say when we eventually die and lets say our family or even clients want to see what we have done. Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.
If cc had more price options i would be very temped to join it. Ither a 30-40$/month plan for say a suite as they have done for years or pick your favorite 3 programs and 1-2 minior ones like bridge or acrobat. I would also like to see a 10-15/month plan for just 1 program but that is not a special offer but long standing price. Im sure the cc price will change within the next 12 months which is for good or bad why you can only lock in a 1 year plan. It would be nice if like a phone you could lock in your plan price for 2 years. At least you would know what to expect. Adobe should look at phone subscriptions and see how we get people to pay 90/month for a phone which for many is a toy and they cant get people to pay 50/month for tools. With phones when you renew your contract gennerally every 2 years you get a massive discount on some new phones and some will actaully be free or upto 70% off. Adobe shoudl consider this. The more adobe products you have the bigger your renew discount should be. They could do it as 2 year contract or have several durations besides monthly and yearly. Have a 6 month, 18 and 24 month. Say you pay 50/month for your contract duration of 1 year, when it comes time to renew you should have a discount lets say 10-20% off which would be 40-45$ which is handy. If you upgrade to cc and have a suite you should have a biggerest discount than just 1 program say instead of 40/month like 30/month for that contract duration and if you have master collection maybe 20/month for the duration. Then with those 2 suites when its time to renew still give a discount but maybe less. Maybe a suite becomes 40/month and master 30/month but give more discount than those who just renewed. Give us what feels like incentives not punishments.
Ya having 3 almost 4 photoshops was getting a big crazy. Photoshop extended, photohop, photoshop elements and light room. I guess its good for adobe to consolidate but they could have done it with out the cloud. Just make elements and lightroom merged and bump up the price maybe 40%. I think thats fair. Similarly with photoshop and extended, merge the 2 and increase price to 1/2 way between both. Starts getting weird when you have many overlapping things. Like web design has dream weaver and muse. I would love to get that as 1 program or a package deal since they do the same thing but go about it differently. Merge them as 1 and increase price 40%. Same with indesign and incopy, merge them together and increase price 40%. This will make each program stronger and a better buy. Just good house keeping to simplify. Adobe offers so many things I honestly dont know what some of their new things like fusion do. Many have only been around 1-2 years and its becoming complicated to know about all their stuff especially when they start overlapping.
Good luck adobe. I do love you but you are breaking my heart. I want to stay but you need to make some changes to help me want to.

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

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 external isight better than the internal?

I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
Kalel

Hi Kalel,
I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
Both the internal and external have autofocus.
One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
Good Luck
John

Is the 70D significantly better than the 7D at handling high ISO situations?

I have a 6D and it has really spoiled me with it's low noise high ISO capabilities. I'm wondering if the 70D is significantly better than my 7D when it comes to handling high ISOs. It has the same sensor as the 6D and I really like that view screen on the 70D.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

The 6D has a "full frame" sensor - physical dimensions are close to the 36mm x 24mm size of a 35mm film negative frame.
Both the 7D and 70D have APS-C sensors - physical dimensions are close to 22mm x 15mm and close to the same size of a negative frame from "Advanced Photo System - Class" size film.
While the 7D and 70D have sensors which are roughly the same size, the sensors themselves are very different because the 70D has the new dual-pixel AF technology.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Is 1.3 Bios really better than 1.52B?? Neo2 Board and Some Observations!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for