Leopard much slower than Tiger and buggy
Hi,
I run Leopard on PBG4(1.67MHz) with 1GB of ram and iMAC G5(2.1) with 1.5GB of ram and I am experiencing incredibly poor performance.
Booth machines are slower than usual and I cannot find reasons why. On my PB I am constantly getting spinning beach-ball and interestingly my fans are running all the time. Something that was not the case with Tiger. Importantly: I did not install any new SW. I use only MS Office and iWork/iLife.
When I did a little bit of investigation I found out that Safari is taking up a lot of processing time. Even when is idle it takes up to 40%-50% of CPU time. And that is the case with PB and iMac.
Furthermore I have encountered strange behaviour with PowerPoint and Excell and here is one line from console.log:
5.11.07 13:14:58 [0x0-0x49049].com.microsoft.Excel[591] Mon Nov 5 13:14:58 Jabucek.local Excel[591] <Error>: The function `CGPDFDocumentGetMediaBox' is obsolete and will be removed in an upcoming update. Unfortunately, this application, or a library it uses, is using this obsolete function, and is thereby contributing to an overall degradation of system performance. Please use `CGPDFPageGetBoxRect' instead.
Are we having serious problems with Leopard? Was this product premature to be released on the market? I am seriously thinking to downgrade back to Tiger.
Do you have any similar experiences?
Matej
Hi,
I only came to this thread because I was searching for items on a similar Console message:
"/System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer.app/Contents/MacOS/SystemUIServer: The function CGSDictionary is obsolete and will be removed in a Tiger update. Unfortunately, this app, or a library it uses, is using this obsolete function, and is thereby contributing to an overall degradation of system performance."
As you can see, I'm still running Tiger - and I'm worried that installing Leopard will not make this odd message go away - It and another two with a similar message are generated everytime I start up..
Similar Messages
-
OK, what I want to do is search for images with Google or similar search engine. This was fine in my previous FF version. The images just loaded as thumbnails, all the same size and I had to click on one to open it in a new tab or whatever I wanted to do. Now the images load all different sizes and if I hover for a moment over on, it zooms in a bit and gives me some image details. This slows image searching to the point of being very frustrating. I thought this might be a Google things, so tried other search engines. Tried switching Javascript off to speed things up, just blank grey rectangles displayed. Tried Opera and it loads basic images like Firefox used to, FAST...
The speed of image searching isn't a problem for me. The trouble is, the automatic zoom function is lightning fast and I find it disturbing to the point that it makes me feel very ill.
I very much want a way of suppressing it. -
When received messages include embedded pictures, Outlook 2010 does not persist those pictures in the .pst file with the message text. Instead, it redownloads the pictures every time the message is rendered for viewing or printing.
Send/Receive to replicate a message with multiple embedded pictures from POP3 mail server (not Exchange server)
Select and view the message - notice all the x placeholders for the embedded pictures
Right-click any x placeholder and select to "download pictures"
After some delay, the pictures are rendered, replacing the placeholders, to form the complete message
Now, select "File" and "Print" -- notice that the preview is not immediately displayed. There is a delay while thos same embedded pictures are downloaded, again. Sometimes there will be a pop-up notification that Outlook is "communicating with
the server"
Eventually the message is fully rendered with all embedded pictures
Now, select a different printer -- notice that the preview disappears and it takes time to .... yes, redownload those same pictures, again.
Finally, click on "Print" -- notice yet another delay for a final download to rerender the message for the printer.
Having done all that, close Outlook, disconnect from the network (turn off wireless or disconnect wire), open Outlook and view that same message. The x placeholders are shown instead of the embedded pictures. Although those embedded pictures
were downloaded multiple times already, they were not persisted locally.
Outlook 2003 and 2007 correct ask for confirmation to save the pictures locally then does so. Printing and viewing is then possible without having to redownload those pictures.
Is there going to be a fix for this Outlook 2010 defect? I've been waiting, applying updates, and waiting.....Please do not close this thread. The issue remains. I apologize for not checking back sooner. I thought I would get pinged by email when this tread was updated; I did not. I'll monitor more closely in the future.
First, please note that I explicitly set Outlook to NOT download pictures automatically. I want to be prompted to download. However, after confirmed that I want the download, I expect pictures related to the message to be downloaded only once,
immediately after I confirm that I want them downloaded.
I have confirmed many times that the behavior in this area is NOT identical between 2003, 2007 and 2010. In particular, 2007 does download once and store locally (if user confirms to save changes when prompted), as expected, and 2010 downloads each
view/preview/print.
This is quite easy to verify -- simply unplug any network cable, disable wireless, etc. In other words completely detach from the networked world. 2007 will correctly view/preview/etc. from local storage whereas 2010 always reverts to showing
placeholders for any embedded images. This is 100% repeatable.
As an additional verification, simply move the .pst file to another system that is not connected to any network. Open the .pst file with 2007 and any embedded images that were already downloaded (and saved) are there, with 2010 they are not.
With 2010, it is bad enough that embedded images are not saved for viewing when disconnected. Worse than that, the repeated downloads can be a significant disruption to performance. Just get on a really slow wireless connection as is typical
in some hotels. Then try to view and print messages with lots of embedded pictures. Slow takes on a whole new, even slower, meaning.
This 2010 defect has been reproduced. Is there a KB article, Windows Update, hotfix,.... anything available to eliminate this problem of repeated downloads of embedded pictures? -
The logic in LEOPARD being faster than TIGER?
I'm still trying to grasp this concept. I have NEVER heard of an upgrade that goes faster than a previous version...
DISK SPACE
If I upgrade my MacBook from Tiger to Leopard using the "archive and install feature" on the disk, am I adding more system files to my existing ones? Or does the installation process of LEOPARD somehow remove more files than it installs?
In my world, less disk space = slower computer. Maybe there's a little logic in that.
Message was edited by: You Got PwndYou Got Pwnd,
Actually, every subsequent version of OS X has performed better, on every supported architecture, than the previous version. In some cases, quite a bit better and faster.
Leopard is a somewhat different story, though. On older, but still support machines, it can be very much slower than Tiger. The amount of available RAM has a lot to do with this (on some older machines, the maximum RAM "puts the squeeze" on Leopard), as does the presence (or not) of advanced graphics processors.
Certainly, many things are faster in Leopard than they are in Tiger, given a machine that meets certain requirements (enough RAM, advanced graphics, etc.). Leopard's Finder is now multi-threaded, so the apparent speed of the GUI is much improved. Also, the more advanced interaction of the CPU and the GPU provide increased response for many facets of the GUI.
Then, there is the potential full 64-bit aspect of Leopard. If it is being run on a 64-bit machine, it can be significantly faster than any previous version for many tasks.
Disk space only affects speed when it is insufficient for the current virtual memory usage, and in fact, some modern hard drives perform better when more disk space is being used (specifically, those that use the relatively new PMR technology). Up to a point, it is more RAM that has an affect on overall performance, not disk space.
"Archive and Install" moves every part of the current OS into a "Previous Systems" folder, and installs a brand-new, and complete, copy of the new OS. In other words, it uses at least twice the amount of disk space currently being used (by system files, at least). Only an "Upgrade" installation removes and replaces as needed to migrate from one in-place version to another, and only an "Erase and Install" formats the startup volume and installs the new OS, and only the new OS, to the erased volume.
Once you have migrated to Leopard, an additional option is available: "Restore from a Time Machine Backup." While your Time Machine backup, on an external/secondary drive, is not "bootable," the Leopard install disk can use it to completely "Restore" a bootable system, including all your applications and user data, to an erased startup volume. This is not fresh installation of OS X with your data and applications copied back, but a complete restoration of everything from the backup, and it takes much, much less time to perform than a normal installation (it is dependent only on the speed of your external drive. In my case, that is a Firewire 800 drive, and a ~50 GB system takes only 30 minutes to completely restore).
Scott -
Why is Mac OS X 10.7 so much slower than Snow Leopard? It isnt smooth, applications are slow and most dont respond, and dowloads take hours, not minutes.
Something is seriously wrong with your installation or you are critically low on RAM, like below 2 GB.
How much RAM is in your machine?
Have you tried a Recovery? -
Anyone else? CS4 running much slower than CS3?
I just upgraded to CS4 from CS3. All of the applications are running much, much slower than CS3, particularly InDesign. My computer is literally fresh out of the box; specs below. Software and patches up to date. Thinking of uninstalling CS4 and reverting back to CS3. Any suggestions/feedback?
MacBook Pro 15"
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4GB memory
320GB 5400-rpm hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics processor with 256MB
1440 by 900 pixels
Snow Leopard OX
Purchased CS4 Master Collection. Other software installed includes iLife, iWork, Office for Mac.I'm not using In Design yet, but for Photoshop and Acrobat my sense is that they are fast or faster than CS3, and Snow Leopard has reduced the launch time for all my apps compared with Leopard.
Yes there are issues with running Adobe apps with Snow Leopard, but some of them are the same issues when running CS3 apps with Leopard--and in any event, these are, I believe, all crashing bugs, not things that slow down responsiveness. I personally have had only a few problems with Design Std CS4 apps + Snow Leopard. -
Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?
Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.
-
PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.
Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back. -
To run a piece of PL/SQL code, in TT is much slower than in ORACLE.
A piece of PL/SQL code , about 1500 lines, package is named rtmon_event, function in it is named rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT;
the PL/SQL code is run in ORACLE.
Now I want to get fast speed, I think of TT.
I rewrite the PL/SQL code by grammer in TT.
But the speed in TT is much slower than the speed in ORACLE.
In ORACLE, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 80 seconds; but In TT, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 183 seconds;
How can I resolve the problem?
Btw: there are some joins of 2 tables, or 3 tables in rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT, and some complex DML in it.
The run method is :
declare
a number;
begin
a := rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT ;
end;
Thanks a lot.The easiest way to view a plan is to use ttIsql and issue the command:
explain SQL-statement;
For example:
explain select a.ol1, b.col2 from taba a, tab b where a.key = b.key;
See the documentation that 'hitgon' pointed you to to help you interpret the plans.
Chris -
In CS6, JavaScript Running MUCH Slower than ActionScript
Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavieHi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie -
Why is java slower than C and C++
Hi Guys:
I would like to know why Java is slower than C and C++ in terms of compilation speed...
Does it have to do with the fact that Java compiles to byte code first and then the JVM translates byte code to machine code which your processor can understand. whereas C and C++ compiles directly to machine code...
Any ideas on that,...let me know..It's not necessarily. I would suggest that it always is; whencomparing
specific tasks.I would suggest that is never is (significantly)
when non-trivial and non-specialized applicationsare
involved. Requirements and design always have a
much greater impact.There's no doubt that the design is the most
important
aspect when writing a program, but assuming those
things
are equal, the fact is that a c program will be
faster.Yes, but given the fact that there is almost zero chance that the requirements, design and implementation will be optimal, it means that the real differences between the languages are insignificant compared to the real difference caused by the other factors.
In the theorectical world C/C++ is faster. In the real world, most of the time, it is not significant. -
Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?
I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin -
ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5. I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746. -
Can iMac be updated or just get new one? On iMac with OSX10.5.8, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo--it's so much slower than iPad. It hasn't had cache cleaned or "First aid". I'm wondering if a computer store/techie can clean/update it or better to put $$ towards new?
If you want to clean up your hard drive some, here are some of my tips, also.
Hard drive getting full or near full?
Do a search for and downlaod and install OmniDisk Sweeper and OnyX.
Here are some of my tips for deleting or archiving data off of your internal hard
Have you emptied your iMac's Trash icon in the Dock?
If you use iPhoto, iPhoto has its own trash that needs to be emptied, also.
If you use Apple Mail app, Apple Mail also has its own trash area that needs to be emptied, too!
Other things you can do to gain space.
Delete any old or no longer needed emails and/or archive older emails you want to save to disc, Flash drive/s or to ext. hard drive.
Look through your Documents folder and delete any type of old useless type files like "Read Me" type files.
Again, archive to disc, Flash drive or ext. hard drive and/or delete any old documents you no longer use or immediately need.
Uninstall apps that you no longer use. If the app has a dedicated uninstaller, use it to completely uninstall the app. If the app has no uninstaller, then just drag it to the OS X Trash icon and empty the Trash.
Also, if you save old downloaded .dmg application installer files, you can either archive and delete these or just delete the ones you think you'll never install, again.
Download an app called OnyX for your version of OS X.
When you install and launch it, let it do its thing initially, then go to the cleaning and maintenance tabs and run all of the processes in the tabs. Let OnyX clean out all web browser cache files, web browser histories, system cache files, delete old error log files.
Typically, iTunes and iPhoto libraries are the biggest users of HD space.
If you have any other large folders of personal data or projects, these should be thinned out, moved, also, to the external hard drive and then either archived to disc, Flash drive or ext. hard drive and/or deleted off your internal hard drive.
Good Luck! -
why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies!!!
HI,
Apple did not erase iChat.
Messages in Mountain Lion is iChat +
The plus bit is the fact you can iMessage iOS devices.
All the other features that were in iChat are still there.
If you upgraded Lion to get to Mountain Lion then in System Preferences > Mail, Contacts and Calendars you probably list all the iChat Accounts (Screen Names and IDs).
You may need to enable them for Messages.
They should also show up in Messages Menu > Preference > Accounts
Once those accounts (AIM and Jabber) are Enabled they can be viewed in a Combined Buddy List
Windows Menu > Buddies (Or using CMD + 1 Keystrokes)
In the General Section of the Preferences you can Unlink these Buddy lists.
The Green icons or highlight a Buddy and then using the Buddies Menu or the icons at the Bottom of the Buddy list can be used the same way to start Video or Audio Only chats.
The iMessage "Account" is only for texting iOS devices or other people using their Apple ID on a Mac in Messages.
It is an account "in addition to" rather than "taking over from" the services that iChat can join.
9:22 PM Thursday; December 6, 2012
Please, if posting Logs, do not post any Log info after the line "Binary Images for iChat"
iMac 2.5Ghz 5i 2011 (Mountain Lion 10.8.2)
G4/1GhzDual MDD (Leopard 10.5.8)
MacBookPro 2Gb (Snow Leopard 10.6.8)
Mac OS X (10.6.8),
Couple of iPhones and an iPad
"Limit the Logs to the Bits above Binary Images." No, Seriously
Maybe you are looking for
-
With the new setup of the forums, I have difficulty finding the FAQ section, as well as the Featured Discussion section. Where have they gone and how can we retrieve them? There are a number of posts in older threads that specifically link to them or
-
hello there despite strong wireless connectivity, no matter what i do, i get the message "cannot be downloaded at thisntime" for any app that i have been sent an update for. i now have 23 updates waiting to be downloaded, according to my appnstore! c
-
I have a question about acount
How can I log in another account in Adobe Creative Cloud? Or how can I combine 2 account?
-
I already looked at the beginner's guide etc... I've scoured the forums a bit, and I've probably missed something, I won't mind being corrected after saying I couldn't find anything of much use. I'm putting arch on my netbook but I don't feel like p
-
Hi Forum, i am new to Transporting Objects, though i have gone thru the available documents and following weblogs: /people/sap.india5/blog/2005/11/03/xi-software-logistics-1-sld-preparation /people/sap.india5/blog/2005/11/09/xi-software-logistics-ii-