Is CS5 really faster, much more stable?

Can someone tell me how stable CS5 is (in comparison to CS3)?  The trial version is really the most useless product imaginable.  What good is it if you can't use it on an existing HD project?  I've been using Adobe products for many years, and every version hasn't been a worthwhile upgrade.  I'm not about to shell out the cost for an upgrade, without some kind of proof that it does a better job than what I've got now.  I've got a really good understanding of how CS3 works in my environment (rather unstable, very slow to open big HD projects, etc.)  If I could do a side by side comparison on my hardware, I'd be a lot more likely to purchase the product.

ddice wrote:
"Can someone tell me how stable CS5 is (in comparison to CS3)?"
CS5 is the best release of Premiere ever.  You need to invest in decent hardware to enjoy the benefits of Premiere CS5.  Check the hardware section of this forum.

Similar Messages

  • Overall faster and more stable when starting fresh

    I got tired of the slow and crashing issues after I upgraded to the new firmware and installed new apps. I decided to restore the phone to "factory" settings (1st gen iPhone). But this time, instead of restoring from a previous backup, I selected the first option, which is to setup a new one.
    All the settings were reset, but I guess starting out with a new slate, everything feels much more stable and faster. Any comments on this?
    I guess once in a while, it's a good idea to format your hard drive and install everything from scratch : )

    Hi Thewisestarfish,
    Thanks for using Apple Support Communities. Based on what you stated, it sounds like the Mac is running slowly. I would recommend that you read this article, it may be able to help the issue.
    OS X Yosemite: If your Mac runs slowly
    Cheers,
    Mario

  • Why is Firefox Namoroka 3.6.3 faster and more stable than Firefox 3.6.8

    a)Why is Firefox Namoroka 3.6.3 faster and more stable than Firefox 3.6.8.
    Firefox 3.6.8 repeatedly crashes and the message details are Plugins/Plugin Basket!!!
    The original Firefox Namoroka 3.6.3 is not only faster but does not crash?
    b) Why are there NO security updates for Firefox Namoroka 3.6.3?

    Namoroka is the nightly tester version of what will become the next Firefox release, and it is up to - Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9pre) Gecko/20100813 Namoroka/3.6.9pre ID:20100813042130 - right now.
    If you are having problems with the Plugin Container in 3.6.8, you will probably have the same problems with 3.6.9pre, too.
    The first thing you should do is to update to the latest "86" release that came put this past Thursday.

  • I love my t500 so much more now

    I hate to say this, but when I got my t500, I was really disappointed.  The quality of the system was great, but I could not go a day without having it freeze or crash on me, right out of the box, and it took me around 3 to 4 minutes just to boot, which was pretty often...  Even though I ran windows and system update, I just could not get it to work right.  (I got the system in November of 2008 so it was still a very new product.)
    Finally, I got it workable 6 months later or so, by manually downloading all my drivers, and installing them fresh again.  I would still have it not wake from sleep ocasionally, but the system was stable in use..
    I recently upgraded to windows 7, and I can not tell you how much faster, and more stable this thing is... If anyone is still on the fence about upgrading their t series laptop, don't be.  It was the single best thing I have done so far.
    My t500 vista boot times were 3 min, after bios tweaks, which was still slower than my 5 year old gateway laptop with a 4200 rpm hard drive and xp, but now with windows 7 and my t500, it is about 1.5 minutes.  (I call a boot when I can get a browser open.)  
    I cut my boot in half, the system is more responsive, and has woke up from sleep every time.
    Thanks Lenovo, for all the work you have been doing on getting the drivers right this go around!
    Thinkpad T500 - Intel Core2 P8400 (2.26GHz), 4 gigs of ram, 160GB/7200rpm hard drive, ATI 3650 GPU, WSXGA+ panel

    Pete,
    You must be some kind of saint to put up with all that and even  be able to fake a good attitude
    I'm really REALLY frustrated with the quality of the OS (starts with V) and application software that Lenovo releases into the wild these days.  The gyrations that we have to go through (peruse this forum) just to get the basics to work makes me think none of it was ever tested.
    However ... my experience with support and service is quite different from yours. (so far...)  Out of my 4 thinkpads I have twice had issues with the LCD displays.  Both times I called support, they verified that there was a problem, entered a case # and the next morning the DHL truck showed up at the door with a laptop shipping carton.  The driver actually waited while I put the TP in the carton, and off it went.  The next morning (in Atlanta??) it was repaired, and the morning after that it was back on my porch.  48 hours on the road, and 72 more or less from my call.
    I feel your pain.  I hope things haven't changed for the worse with support like they have with the software product.
    Be cool,
    Z.
    The large print: please read the Community Participation Rules before posting. Include as much information as possible: model, machine type, operating system, and a descriptive subject line. Do not include personal information: serial number, telephone number, email address, etc.  The fine print: I do not work for, nor do I speak for Lenovo. Unsolicited private messages will be ignored. ... GeezBlog
    English Community   Deutsche Community   Comunidad en Español   Русскоязычное Сообщество

  • I'd like to alter my Airport Extreme/Airport Express wireless network so that the 3 Expresses connect to the Extreme via Ethernet. I've been told this will create a more stable wifi signal. How do I configure this using Airport Utility? Thanks.

    I currently have an Airport Extreme Base Station connected to my DSL router by Ethernet. Because I have a long, sprawling home, I have 3 Airport Expresses configured to "Extend the Wireless Network" I've established. Because of my home environment--thick walls encompassaing wire mesh, sprawling rooms, etc., it is hard to maintain a continuously-strong, stable WiFi signal. I've been told that I can create a much more stable network by connecting the Express units to the AEBS via Ethernet cable. Since my home is already wired for Ethernet, I'm considering making this change. If I proceed to establish the Ethernet connections, how do I then set up Airport Utility to accomodate this switch from a Wireless-based WiFi network to an Ethernet-based WiFi network?
    Thanks in advance for any help.
    Phyllis

    I don't see anyplace in the Utility to designate HOW the Express units are connected, only how they relate on the network to the Extreme,
    As I mentioned in the previous post, when you click the Internet icon in AirPort Utility:
    Connect Using = Ethernet  (This tells each Express to connect to the Extreme using the ethernet connection)
    Connection Sharing = Off (Bridge Mode)  (This setting allows your AirPort Extreme to function as the "main" router on the network, as it must for the setup to work correctly.
    You do not need to configure anything differently on the AirPort Extreme (as long as it is working correctly now) to connect the AirPort Express devices.
    The only other question I have is the following: I'm currently already using one of the Ethernet ports on the back of the Extreme-- for my husband's iMac. I really don't think he gains much in performance over how the iMac would run through wifi, so I could disconnect the iMac. If you think the iMac would do better to stay on the Ethernet connection, should I use a switch/splitter to add an extra connection?
    Since each AirPort Express must connect using ethernet, you will need to use the 3 LAN <-> ports on the AirPort Extreme for the AirPort Express devices.
    I would suggest that you try connecting the iMac using wireless to see if that will work. If the wireless connection is not satisfactory, then you can add a 5 port ethernet switch to one of the LAN ports on the Extreme and then plug all the devices connecting using ethernet....the iMac and the 3 AirPort Express devices...into the remaining 4 ports on the switch. That will leave you with 2 open ports on the AirPort Extreme for any future devices that may need to connect.
    When you test out the system, here is a trick to find out which device your computer is actually connecting to at any given time as it "roams" around the house.
    When you have AirPort Utility open to configure each AirPort Express, jot down the AirPort ID for each Express. You can do the same for the AirPort Extreme.
    As you move around with your laptop, hold down the option key on your Mac keyboard while you click on the fan shaped AirPort icon at the top of the screen. Look for the BSSID. That is the AirPort ID of the device that the laptop is connected to at that time. it should also be the ID of the closest AirPort Express (or AirPort Extreme if the laptop is close to the Extreme at the time).
    Let us know how things are working when everything is up and running.

  • Really fast scroll wheel in ID CS5

    I'm using the new Magic mouse (the multi touch wireless one) and in indesign it scrolls really fast, a mere touch and it shoots off to the side or scrolls down a page. I can't see any option in preferences to change the speed and in system prefs I've got scroll speed set to the lowest, the mouse scrolls fine in Chrome or Safari so I'm thinking it's a problem with ID.
    Ta very much for any help
    Tom

    This problem doesn't seem to be limited to the Magic Mouse. I've found the same problems with ID CS4 and CS5 using my Mighty Mouse...
    I use a Mighty at work and a Magic at home, and CS3 scrolls smoothly with no jerks or skips whatsoever... but as soon as I switch over to CS5 (I have both installed on my work computer, so it's easy to compare), the scrolling control  is abysmal. I'm pretty confident the problem is with the apps, not the mouse.

  • IBook not starting, fan going really fast

    Hi everyone.
    Yesterday something happened. Everytime I try to switch on my iBook G4, the power goes on, but the screen remains black and the fan starts to go really fast, like never happened before even when it was too hot. Yesterday I managed to hear the startup chime, and even once I managed to switch in on, but it lasted for around 10 minutes, and the the screen went black again.
    Now I can only hear a sound, like a click (not the start up chime) and then the fan going fast, as I said, but nothing else happens.
    Sorry for my English and thanx in advance for any help. It's much appreciated.
    Regards.

    Did you try booting off of Install disc #1 to see if you have video? If you can, it wouldn't hurt to navigate to Disk Utility and verify both permissions and the disk and repair if necessary. This probably won't solve the problem, but it is good practice to do before and after software updates.
    If you can boot off of a CD, you could also try running the Apple Hardware Test and check for hardware problems. Very likely there won't be any that show up, but it will give you some assurance that your hardware has no major problems. The AHT won't find everything, but it does test quite a few things.
    If you can boot from a CD, then you could consider doing an Archive and Install, as suggested in the article. It would be best to back up your data in advance if you can. If you have access to another Mac, you might be able to do this using Target Disk Mode. A fresh install of the OS will take care of any corrupted software, especially if it was caused by an update.
    If reinstalling the OS does not fix the problem, then it is likely a hardware problem. But given what you have said here, it sounds more likely to be software.
    good luck!

  • REALLY fast stop motion..HELP!

    So I am trying to make a stop motion using imovie 09 and it wont let me make the clips shorter then .1 seconds...does anybody know how I can make them shorter? I am trying to make this REALLY fast...Help!! This is for a major film project I am working on. All help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

    hjsami01 wrote:
    So I am trying to make a stop motion using imovie 09 and it wont let me make the clips shorter then .1 seconds...
    that's right. for smooth stop-motion, you need 1 frame per second.
    you need tools as QuicktimePro vers7, which allows to convert a folder of pics into a smooth stream of video, or designated stop-motion tools as framebyframe (free) or iStopMotion ($$, therefor much more elaborated&convenient).
    and Welcome, hjsami01, to the  boards ...

  • [SOLVED] Does anyone really have a "rock stable" Arch?

    Please see the  Rock Stable Arch Linux HOWTO  wiki page and contribute. The short answer to this thread for those who want to know if Arch can be really stable is yes.
    Lately I've been looking into FreeBSD, but I haven't installed it because some of my important hardware (wireless card, etc.) are not supported until 8.0 and I would prefer to wait until the official release rather than run betas & RCs. In almost all of the comparisons between FreeBSD and Linux that I read, there are references to FreeBSD being far more stable than Linux because of the base system and how thought is put into how the programs at the base work together and the FreeBSD team makes sure everything is working correctly before deployment of a release. From what I've read, FreeBSD is designed with thought and effort put into how the base system should function to ensure stability and correctness, whereas Linux is grown as haphazard development and hacking is dropped onto the kernel piece by piece, with everything being an add on.
    That doesn't sound very fair to Linux, for if that were 100% true, Linux wouldn't even work! The Arch Wiki elucidates that the people behind the Arch project put plenty of effort towards code-correctness, elegance, and cutting the BS out of the system, right?
    So after reading up on FreeBSD and having some time to still enjoy Linux until FBSD 8.0 hits STABLE, I started to think that maybe Linux is still right for me, the best for me. After all, Arch takes everything the entire Linux community has to offer and allows us to put it together with pacman and the awesome AUR. The only problem is, as soon as I fired up my old reliable Arch install and did a pacman -Syu, I found that my nvidia driver was broken for this release and I would probably have to downgrade. I know it's probably an easy fix, but I really don't like when this kind of stuff happens. I get that feeling of finally finishing my configuration just the way I like it, finally conquering the beast that is Arch, and then a simple update causes a showstopper breakage.
    Is this really possible to avoid? Is it because I'm using proprietary software that can't really be controlled and that going (almost) all open-source would help prevent this? How often do these breakages happen to you guys? Do you consider it a pain to fix or do you just shrug it off as part of the process of using Arch?
    I used to not mind so much but that was when I was still configuring and it just felt like one extra step. Now I'd like to have that rock of a system I know (hope) Linux can be. I even considered switching to slackware or another distro, but I love Arch so much! It's just so perfect! But how can I avoid these kinds of breakages? I'd really rather not just accept them as a part of using Linux because that makes me feel like I'm using Windows and accepting the fact that my computer crawls and crashes every other day.
    I know the easy post for you guys would be to tell me "just try FreeBSD/Slackware/other OS and leave me alone", but I really want to stay with Arch. I love the community, the documentation, the software, the everything! I feel it really is "Linux done right". But what about these update breakages?
    One more question (well, two more, but related): Is it true that not updating for a long time and then doing a pacman -Syu can break your system? Do I have to update every day to keep Arch happy and stable?
    Thanks everyone. Hopefully you guys can shed some light on this for me.
    Last edited by Allamgir (2009-08-22 12:14:17)

    I got your message, so here's a reply:
    I've walked the line between bleeding edge features and rock-solid stability for several years now.  I finally made a decision a few months ago and came down on the side of stability.  There really isn't a right answer to this question - it comes down to personal preference.
    There is a lot to be said for a bleeding-edge rolling-release distro such as Arch.  I remember the time I ran my first pacman -Syu and felt awed at the fact that I was one of the first users to get the latest version of *.  However, I've grown more pragmatic since then.  Sure, it's fun to get the latest and "greatest"; but is it really worth it?  Are you really much more productive with the new version than you were with the old?  In my case, the answer was usually no.  I just don't care if my stuff is at the latest version (provided that the latest security updates are installled, that is!)
    So, I started using Scientific Linux (a RHEL clone from CERN, Fermilab, and some other research institutes).  It has a fairly lightweight live CD available and works beautifully for me.  My kernel version is 2.6.18 (with some newer drivers).  Do I care?  Not really.  It works and it does what I tell it to do.  There are some exceptions.  While I mostly browse with elinks, sometimes I need to use Firefox for Flash or whatnot.  And I like to have that in the latest version.  So, I just download the latest binary and run it from my home directory.  Problem solved.
    You don't have to go as far as I did.  There are some other choices:
    Slackware.  I know you decided that Slack wasn't for you, but it's a remarkable system and it can be pretty modern if you choose to keep it up-to-date.  Even if you end up not liking it, I feel that Slackware's package management (or lack thereof) is something every user should experience.  It gives you a new outlook on the KISS philosophy.
    SliTaz. I include SliTaz because it is the perfect system to customize completely.  If you want it up to date, it will be.  New versions not in the repos?  Build them; it's easy.  SliTaz is what you make of it, provided that you are willing to put in the time.
    Arch.  You can stay with Arch (sounds like that's where you're at right now).  If you want the latest software just for the sake of it, or use bloated amalgamations that are hard to update yourself (*cough* desktop environments *cough*), Arch is the best rolling-release system I've used.  The team is dedicated and this community is great.
    Think it over and come to your own decision.

  • Is network rendering really faster overall?

    I'm just getting into network rendering. I've setup 4 machines as the farm. All is well and the image sequence is being processed pretty quickly. However, after rendering out several thousand static PSD frames, I realized I still had to go through the process of converting them to a movie. Importing them into Adobe Media Encoder was relatively easy, but it still took a long time to encode the final output as video. When you factor in the additional step of encoding the movie, I'd estimate a very small amount of time saving through network rendering.
    What am I missing? How is this really faster in the end? I'd love to be enlightened. Is there a simple (and much faster way) to go from composition to final h.264 video through network rendering?
    Thanks!

    Run a test yourself...
    Set your three machines to render a PSD sequence, the once it's done use AME on one of them to make an h264.
    On the other machine send your composition to AME and render an h264.
    In my experience the more computers doing the heavy lifting (ie working out your AE file) the better. Once the image sequence is done the easy bit to process is getting it out into another format.

  • MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

    Hi
    I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
    I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
    Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
    Thanks!

    Hi niefl,
    First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
    As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
    But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
    Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
    Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
    Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
    Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
    Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
    Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
    Finally, they look better!
    If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
    Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
    Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
    Cheers
    Rod

  • OR is taking much more time than UNION

    hi gems..
    i have written a query using UNION clause and it took 12 seconds to give result.
    then i wrote the same query using OR operator and then it took 78 seconds to give the resultset.
    The tables which are referred by this qurey have no indexes.
    the cost plans for the query with OR is also much more lesser than that with UNION.
    please suggest why OR is taking more time.
    thanks in advance

    Here's a ridiculously simple example.  (these tables don't even have any rows in them)
    If you had separate indexes on col1 and col2, the optimizer might use indexes in the union but not in the or statement:
    Which is faster will depend on the usual list of things.
    Of course, the union also requires a sort operation.
    SQL> create table table1
      2  (col1 number, col2 number, col3 number, col4 number);
    Table created.
    SQL> create index t1_idx1 on table1(col1);
    Index created.
    SQL> create index t1_idx2 on table1(col2);
    Index created.
    SQL> explain plan for
      2  select col1, col2, col3, col4
      3  from table1
      4  where col1> = 123
      5  or col2 <= 456;
    Explained.
    SQL> @xp
    | Id  | Operation         | Name   | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT  |        |     1 |    52 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |*  1 |  TABLE ACCESS FULL| TABLE1 |     1 |    52 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       1 - filter("COL1">=123 OR "COL2"<=456)
    SQL> explain plan for
      2  select col1, col2, col3, col4
      3  from table1
      4  where col1 >= 123
      5  union
      6  select col1, col2, col3, col4
      7  from table1
      8  where col2 <= 456;
    Explained.
    SQL> @xp
    | Id  | Operation                     | Name    | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |         |     2 |   104 |     4  (75)| 00:00:01 |
    |   1 |  SORT UNIQUE                  |         |     2 |   104 |     4  (75)| 00:00:01 |
    |   2 |   UNION-ALL                   |         |       |       |            |          |
    |   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TABLE1  |     1 |    52 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |*  4 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_IDX1 |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |   5 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TABLE1  |     1 |    52 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    |*  6 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN          | T1_IDX2 |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       4 - access("COL1">=123)
       6 - access("COL2"<=456)

  • BEWARE of using stopwatch or timer in iphone 5 under iOS7. As the mili second digit ticks really fast, in a matter of minutes, it will break your LCD under that mili second area. It happened to my iphone5. Let me know if you have same issue.

    BEWARE of using stopwatch or timer in iphone 5 under iOS7. As the mili second digit ticks really fast, in a matter of minutes, it will break your LCD under that mili second area. It happened to my iphone5. Let me know if you have same issue.

    You two are obviously talking about the LCD pixels being killed. What exactly does it look like?
    How many minutes are you talking about, 2 to 3, 5 to 7 or more?
    Where was the brightness control at for the both of you?
    KOT

  • I installed lv 6.1 on a windows 98 system. As I am having problems of stability (much more than with the former release 6.0), I would like to know if there is some specific problem with windows 98 or there is some patch.

    I installed lv 6.1 on a windows 98 system. As I am having problems of stability (frequent crashes, much more than with the former release 6.0), I would like to know if there is some specific problem with windows 98 or there is some patch available.

    My experience with Win98 is that it is not a very stable system, regardless of software used. For example, Win2000 and XP are far more stable than 98. I've had it crash on its own if I leave the computer on for several days.
    I wouldn't recommend running programs for long time (few days) on this OS.
    This being said, can you be more specific in your question. What kind of stability problems did you have, which VIs did you run (if possible post them here), did you change the interrupts and priority levels on those VI, do you get error messages or blue screen....
    Zvezdana S.

  • Is it the time to go to Google? iTunes is much more expensive than Google Play!

    I know that iTunes is amazing. But now that Google Play's started renting movies in my country (Brazil) I guess if iTunes worth it's high price for everything...
    I have an Apple Tv, what is very good, however isn't complete as well, per exemple that doesn't have a way to change the subtitle size, what's a really simple feature. Otherwise its items are extremelly expense here in my Country. While a movie is rented by Google for R$ 6.99 (~U$3.49) the same movie is rented by iTunes for U$4.99, so I guess: WHY???
    Do you guys have the same felling than I have that Apple has charged so much more money that it would? Anyone here is thinking about migrate to Google Play/Android plataform?
    Why do you guys think about all of that?

    If you find a better price elsewhere, by all means patronize that other company if you wish. We have no control over pricing here, we just being fellow users, and these forums are for technical support questions, not pricing debates or comments, so further discussion on the matter really isn't appropriate here.
    Regards.

Maybe you are looking for