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.

Similar Messages

Can I install Windows 7 on my new MAC Pro running OSx 10.9

Can I install Windows 7 on my new MAC Pro running OSx 10.9. BootCamp Assistant states Windows 8 or later. Help please!

Neil already gave you the answer. Here is the table repeated in case you accessed the wrong location.
Mac model
Windows 8, 64-bit
Windows 7, 64-bit
Windows 7, 32-bit
Windows Vista, 64-bit
Windows Vista, 32-bit
Windows XP, 32-bit
Mac Pro (Late 2013)
BCA
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
5
5
4
DVD
DVD
DVD
Mac Pro (Early 2009)
5
5
4
DVD
DVD
DVD
Mac Pro (Early 2008)
4
4
DVD
DVD
DVD
Mac Pro (Early 2007)
DVD
Mac Pro (Mid 2006)
DVD
You should seek additional Boot Camp help in the Boot Camp forum: https://discussions.apple.com/community/windows_software/boot_camp
The Boot Camp Help Guides are located here: http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/

I have a mac book running leopard software, 10.5.8 how can I get my computor up to date as loin requires minimum 10.6.6

I have a mac book running leopard software, 10.5.8 how can I get my computor up to date as lion requires minimum 10.6.6.

You can upgrade from 10.5 to 10.6 with no problems. Any program that runs under 10.5 should run under10.6. See this list for compatibility with 10.6: http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/ You might have to upgrade some drivers for printers, etc.... And you will have to install Rosetta if you have any Power PC applications http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/snow_leopard_installing_rosetta/
To upgrade your iLife and iWork. If you only want iPhoto or other single apps from iLife '11 you can get them from the App Store after you've upgraded to 10.6.6. iPhoto, iMovie or Garage Band for $15 each and Pages, Keynote or Numbers from iWork '09 for $20 each.
You can order a Snow Leopard 10.6 install disk for $29 as long as you have at least 1gb of RAM and 5gb of free space on your hard drive. http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY
Once you are at 10.6.8 you can buy Lion for $29 from the App Store if you have at least a model 2,1 MacBook. Lion will require at least 2gb of RAM but really needs 4gb to run smoothly. As for programs see this list for compatibility with 10.7 http://roaringapps.com/apps:table Also Lion doesn't run any Power PC programs. To see if you have any Power PC programs go to the Apple in the upper left corner and select About This Mac, then click on More Info. When System Profiler comes up select Applications under Software. Then look under Kind to see if any of your applications are listed as Power PC. Universal and Intel will run under Lion.
Before Mac switched to Intel processors they used Power PC processors from 1994 to 2005. Power PC 601 through 604, G3, G4 and G5. Applications written for the Power PC processors need the application called Rosetta to run on Intel processors. This was part of the Operating System in 10.4 and 10.5 but was an optional install in 10.6. With 10.7 Lion Apple dropped all support for Power PC applications.

TS1424 I am trying to update itunes so that I can sync my new iphone. I get a message Error 7(Windows Error 127). I have uninstalled all apple software and tried to reload with no luck. I have also cleaned my registry with software.

I am trying to update iTunes so that I can sync my new iPhone. I get a message Error 7 (Windows Error 127). I have uninstalled all Apple software and tried to reload with no luck. I have also cleaned my computer's registry with registry cleaning software. Even tried reloading operating system disk to fix errors. Any ideas?

Hello chathamcpa,
I found an article with steps you can take when you are getting Error 7 when opening iTunes. I recommend following the steps in this article:
iTunes for Windows: "Error 7" message when opening iTunes
http://support.apple.com/kb/ts3074
Thank you for using Apple Support Communities.
Best,
Sheila M.

New iMacs better than my Mac Pro?

So would the new 27-inch iMac top of the line out in Dec 2012, be a better/faster station than my MAC PRO 3.0 early 2008 with 3TB storage, 12GB RAM and a ATI 5870 card?
I'd be editing both CS6 and Final Cut Studio 3 on it.

In case Allan was unclear: Absolutely not.
I have a early 2008 MacPro 8x 3.2GHz (16GB RAM / 8TB Storage I've upgraded to SATA3 and have dual 27" Samsung monitors and a 37" color grading monitor on an Matrox MSO2 mini. I wouldn't trade it for a pile of new iMacs.

9iAS in Windows is better than in Linux ?

The documentation of Oracle 9iAS for LINUX informs the following restrictions:
- Entity Beans in EJB is not supported: Session beans are supported only for accessing the middle-tier database
- EJB and SQLJ are not supported with JDK 1.2: they are supported with JDK 1.1.8
- Oracle Portal is not supported in the Enterprise Edition of 9iAS.
I want to ask if the Oracle 9iAS version for Windows NT/2000 doesn't have all these restrictions ? In that case is it better to install the 9iAS in Windows NT/2000 than in Linux ? or should we wait a new release of 9iAS for linux?
Thanks you very much for yours answers.
Maria Consuelo Franky
CincoSOFT Ltda.
Bogota - Colombia
null

That entity beans in ejb is not supported, and only ejb for jdk 118 continue to prove that oracle does not consider linux a first run operating system. Ports for current releases from oracle go solaris/sparc, NT and then linux some months later, and frequently then with reduced functionality. Same goes for parallel server on linux, same story. I'm running 2000 server and it's blazing, with no documented apache on NT showstoppers. Linux is still not prime time.

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.

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.

Cannot install iTunes 10.7 on Windows 7. Getting "a program required for this install could not be run"--Apple Software Update is not installed, so updating it is not a possible solution.

I was following the process of unistalling all Apple software and reinstalling iTunes. But I am getting an error that says "a program required for this install could not be run."
Other threads recommend updating the Apple Software Update module, but that was uninstalled. So if it's part of the problem, updating it is not a solution.
Windows 7, 64-bit, SP 1 installed.

For what it's worth, at the point the installation fails, Bonjour, Apple Application Support, and Apple Mobile Device Support all show as installed on Control Panel. Apple Software Update has a link on the Start Menu but does NOT show as installed on Control Panel. Is there a way to install this separately from iTunes?

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 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.

Printing With Airport Extreme - Results thru PCs Better than thru Macs

I don't get it. My Airport Extreme works beautifully when printing from the Windows XP desktop connected thru it by a LAN or from the Windows Vista laptop connected wirelessly.
However, when I try to print from either my my MacBook Pro or Mac Mini (both wireless connections), I get poor results - only partial letters and images.
Other Airport functionality works great on all machines. For example, I can save to an external hard drive equally well using any of the machines mentioned above. Printing is the only problem.
Any idea what's going on?

We have the same problem. We print from Windows XP, two G4s and a G5 with no problem utilizing all the printers features. The MacBook Pro cannot print a job which has been in queue. One at a time, ok. And, it will not support duplex mode. All the other computers use the old printer driver, the Pro uses a OS X generic driver. It resists any attempt to install the old driver. Among other things, it makes me crazy to have the latest Mac incapable while the PowerPC machines and Windows (sigh...) hum right along.
So I agree, I think it is a driver problem.

Is the new (2011) macbook air better than the mac book pro?

Hi,
I am a university student and Im thinking of going from my macbook pro 13" (2008) to the new macbook air i7 notebook but i'm not sure if I should get the new air, it appeals to me alot because of the fact that its so light and portable but im not sure if it will be enough for the programs I may run on it as I am a multimedia computing student I will be running software such as Photoshop, After Effects, Premier pro as well as flash and I dont know if the air will be as good as my pro has been.
Before I take the leap I wanted to know if it was really worth me getting the new air, I love it because its portable, when i take my pro to uni it weighs a ton and the fact that the air is so light makes me want to get it, but if it wont be able to handle the work I need to do on it theres no point in me getting the air .
I was thinking of getting the top of the range air:
1.8GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
256GB flash storage
the spec for my current pro is:
2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Is it really worth getting the air or would i be better off getting the new pros? Would really appreciate some advice.
Thanks

It's not a hard core gaming rig, but it plays all the FPS games I like, quite well. It handles hi-def video, just fine. I use it for Photoshop, and it is quite fast. For web browsing, it has no equal. The 2010 maxed out 11" would do it all, except for some hi-def video (1080P), which it would stutter. But my new 2011 maxed 13", is perfect for video (1080P=no problem).
I really don't think a MBP will give you as much, on a daily basis. It (the MBP) has only a few advantages, and except for the built in optical drive (which you can still go external, if need be), none of the advantages you will miss even slightly.
I think the MBP would only serve me, if it spent most of the time deskbound, but I would still need an SSD. Once you have had an SSD, you can't go back. Then, you would have a really pricey MBP.

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for