Lion performance with HDD?

I´m buying a new MBP this month and have two options:
1.- MBP 15 (the basic model)
2.- MBP 13 ( i7 model and upgraded with a 120GB SSD)
I'll be working with light image editing in Photoshop and little of Final Cut. Also, I'm thinking about casual gaming. No hi-end stuff anyways.
Now, it's clear that the 15'' mbp is better, however, I'm not sure it will run Lion as great as a 13'' with SSD. In fact, Apple is only showing demos in a MBA (with ssd)
Just wondering, would it be a great difference running the OS?

No one here can answer this until Lion is released.
Allan

Similar Messages

PXIe 8262 streaming performance with HDD 8264 on a PXIe 1062Q chassis

Hello,
I have a PXIe 1062Q chassis, running Win XP, with one 8262 connected to an HD8264 and two PXIe 6537 installed, all the three board being on the express slots (3, 4 and 5). Running the benchmark application for testing the streaming speed (Win32FileIO) I get something like 100 MB/s with data chunks of about 4 MB, and around 140 MB/s with chunk of 64 M. How can improve these results toward the theoretical limit off 600 MB/s? Is there any software/driver trick to be applied?
And, in case, which is the best way to exploit the 8262 from C++ written code (using the NI libraries)? Is there anything similar to the Win32FileIO library? I tried using the RAID system from a c++ test program, and the performance seems very poor, while I would need, if not the 600 MB/s rate, at least something around 200 MB/s of continuous streaming.
Thanks in advance,
Piero.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi Neil,
I actually have a 8130 controller, and in fact that was not the problem: I found the problem being the file-caching performed by Windows file system. If you use standard fstream calls from C source code you cannot bypass it, but by using Windows native call (CreateFile(...), WriteFile(...) APIs) and setting the flag for no data caching or buffering inside the call, I managed to get the full bandwith of 600 MBytes/s.
Anyway thanks for the quick reply!
Piero
I'm guessing you have a controller that only
supports x1 PCI Express. The PXIe-8130 is our highest-bandwidth
controller, with four x4 links going to the chassis. In the case of
the 1062, each of slots 3, 4 and 5 get a dedicated link from the
controller. x1 links max out at about 200 MB/s and x4 links max out at
800 MB/s.
So your first step is to use an embedded
controller or use MXI Express x4 instead of x1 back to a host
computer. While the PXIe-8130 is the best for high-bandwidth data
transfers, the PXIe-8106 should also be sufficient for your needs.
If
you want to stream data to disk from a PXIe-6537, it is already built
into DAQmx. You simply specify a file name, and the data goes to
disk. If you want to stream *from* disk, you'll have to do that on
your own. Here is a C/CVI example for streaming digitizers to disk
using a C API and the Windows File I/O functions.
Neil
Principal Engineer
National Instruments

Lion performance with 2GB Ram

I have an older Imac but it meets the specifications for Lion, I just want to make sure before I install it. My system currently has 2GB of RAM, obviously more is always better but funds are tight so I want to see if this will work as is. What are other's experiences?
Most uses are within Safari, Mail, iPhoto, Garageband and then some use within iMovie/FCE and video conversion software. Try not to have too many things open, especially if i'm doing anything with video.
If I had to upgrade the RAM is it fairly easy to do? I've looked at instructions and it does look so, but I am learly as I don't want to mess anything up. It is expensive to go through our Apple dealer so that would be the worst case scenario.

Just went through the same situation with my 2006 iMac. Technically my memory tops out at 3gigs, but I can get 4 in there if I insist (though the machine won't take full advantage).
After a considerable amount of research, and hearing some horror stories of some folks who dove straight into Lion on older machines, I opted on upgrading memory to 3gig, backing up all my data, then running a clean install of Snow Leopard. I then reinstalled all my stuff, followed with a run of Monolingual (a shareware program that removes unnecessary languages and builds), then ran OnyX (another shareware) to run scripts and check/repair permissions.
Works fantastic. Machine is operating perfectly on 10.6.8 and with the memory upgrade and clean drive its running faster than ever. Definite new breath of life in the machine.
As per memory upgrade, I'd recommend going to Crucial. They're very Mac friendly, customer oriented, and reasonably priced. They have a small program you can download that scans your machine to determine the correct chip required, then brings you stright to an info and ordering page. I managed to get a 2gig chip with shipping for about $25. With the Snow Leopard upgrade total cost was under $60 for resuscitation.

How does OS Lion perform with microsoft office 2011

Has anyone upgraded and experienced problems with their microsoft 2011 or Adobe Creative Suite CS5 (specifically Indesign)?

Office 2011 no problems. CS5 Photoshop no problems. I don't use InDesign.

Windows 7.5 phone not recognized. Charges but no usb connection. USB works with HDD, Flash, 3G modem, Iphone, just no the Win 7.5 phone. Using 27" IMac with Lion.

When I connect windows Phone (HT7 using Windows Phone 7.5 (tried 2 phones) usb wont recognise it. Charges but no usb connection. USB works with HDD, Flash, 3G modem, Iphone, just no the Win 7.5 phone. Using 27" IMac with Lion.
I am running VMWare fusion when I connect any USB device Lion prompts to connect Windows or MAC. Both work for many devices. When I plug in the phone Lion simply does not respond.
Peter

Also.... my phone works and can do everything fine when not plugged in.. I just can't get my computer or others to recognize the darn thing when plugged in!

Can i partition my HD now for fcpx since i didn't do it when i downloaded it. my performance with fcpx is terrible terrible performance

When i downloaded FCPX i was told I really didn't need to partition my hard drive. But my performance with fcpx is terrible from rendering constantly to waiting for a minute after you click for it to do it. I turn off the rendring, I transcoded the media to pro res went to file and hit transcode. but still i mean it crashes, buggy, suggy and it takes hours to do anything. I have my media on a external drive but i did screw up and put some media on internal drive. iMac OSX 10.7.2 3.06 GHZ Core 2 Duo. EX HD LaCie on a 800 firewire.

Partitioning the internal drive is - imho! - completely useless for UNIX-systems such as MacOS, due to excessive usage of (hidden!) temp-files.
And, especially a too small int. HDD partition for the system will brake any app 'til a full halt.
plus, 10.7. has some issues with managing Timemachine backups when it comes to large files as video - again, if the intHDD/OS drive is too small, it gets iffy.
at last >30GBs free, only codecs and material as intended by Cupertino = no probs here (on a much smaller/older set-up).

Win 7 randomly freezes with HDD light on

I'm struggling with this for some time now. My win 7 x64 just freezes from time to time with HDD light on constantly. I've read almost all threads, tried almost every advise, but just could't solve the issue.
I have win 7 Enterprise x64 + SP1 installed on PC:
Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q8400 @2.66GHz
Gigabyte P43-ES3G
8GB RAM (4x2GB Kingston DDR2),
2x1TB HDD (WD)
NVIDIA FeForce 9500GT
Next, I'll list what I've already tried (without success) to not waste anybody's time - tried to change hardware, scan HDD for errors, set memory timings, reinstall win, scan for viruses, update all drivers, update BIOS.
(Maybe) important is that the same thing happens in safe mode. However, I've got no problems with other OSs like Linux or Win XP x64.

comibat & ddrouin: Usually when I run into situations like this, the presumption is that its a relatively new issue, meaning, you haven't have this problem from day 1 of computer
ownership. Right? So, the first thing is to examine what changed recently? We should be considering things like, but not limited to, the following:
Application installation or removal
System configuration change
Driver installation or removal
Hardware installation or removal
Windows updates
Etc.
comibat:
When you boot into Safe Mode (with & without networking; that could be key) & let it sit, for a while, does it seem to hang?
When you performed a clean boot & left it for a while, it also hung, correct?
Does it seem to matter whether or not your machine is connected to a network (wired or otherwise)?
If this something repeatable, like within an hour for instance, you may want to load up Resource Monitor & leave it in the foreground until it happens. When it comes back to normal there should be some results for review. (It may not update
while its in its hung state, but, when it 'comes back to life' it should show you throughput, usage etc and the process(es) associated with it. Unfortunately, this may mean leaving the computer on for a while & not touching it. (Unless
of course its unique to a sequence of events.)
You should consider loading up Performance Monitor as well and creating a counter. Unfortunately, this is probably something you'll just have to let run until it happens, then make note of the date & time for review once it 'comes back to life'.
I would do some research on Performance Monitor & how to setup counters. You could try this counter...
Logman.exe create counter Perf-Counter-Log-1sec -o "c:\perflogs\PerfTest1sec.blg" -f bincirc -v mmddhhmm -max 500 -c "\LogicalDisk(*)\*" "\Memory\*" "\Network Interface(*)\*" "\Paging File(*)\*" "\PhysicalDisk(*)\*" "\Processor(*)\*" "\Process(*)\*" "\Server\*" "\System\*" -si 00:00:01
ddrouin: If you haven't already done so, you may want to consider starting your own thread. (I haven't checked, just a suggestion incase you have not) That said: In addition to the
above, is there any commonality between the three systems (the Lenovo, Asus & your friend's computer)?

I have leopard and want to upgrade to lion. I have a macbook about 3 years old and wonder if I should just get a new macbook pro ($$$) instead. Is it worth the headache to upgrade to snow leopard and then lion? How does lion perform on an intel core duo 2

I have a macbook about 3 years old running leopard. I amwondering ifitwouldbeworth the trouble to install snowleopardand then lion ($60.00) or just buy a new macbook pro ($$$$$$). How does lion perform on an intel core 2 duo processor?

I have Lion installed on a Mini with a C2D processor. The same Mini has Snow Leopard on another partition and there is no noticeable difference in operational speed between the two OS's. But compared to my new MBPro 17" with a 2.83GHz i7, the Mini running Lion is noticeably slower. So if you can afford anew MBPro, then I would get it because you will probably be unhappy with the performance of Lion on the older MBPro. The other benefit of getting a new MBPro with Lion is that if you have any Power PC applications currently on the old MBPro, which will not operate in Lion, then you still have the ability to use them. Many users got stung by upgrading to Lion, only to find they could no longer use the older PPC applications.

Aperture & Lion performance issues

Hi All,
I am running Aperture 3.1.3 and Lion 10.7.1 on a MBP 2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM and have:
1. Turned off faces and gestures
2. Set preview images to medium (5)
3. Turned off MobileMe "automatically check for newly published albums"
4. Turned off share previews with iWork and Ilife
5. Killed off indexing for the photo library
Aperture runs so slow at times its unusable. It can take upwards of a minute to process any changes to an image. Loading an image can take upwards of 30 seconds. HDR processing of three images is a full blown 15 minute coffee break.
I took a look at the Activity Monitor and I find that Aperture is running upwards of 3.5 GB of virtual memory and 1 GB plus of real memory. Disk I/O can hit more than 386 per second. CPU utilization runs anywhere from 10% at idle to 268% (really thats what the Activity Monitor says) when running HDR plugin.
I am running all RAW and the typical image size is 19 MB.
Today it wouldn't find my SDHC card that was plainly visible on the desktop without a reboot of the program...
It occationally crashes when exporting to JPEGs.
Occationally it hangs and needs a force quit.
Occationally makes me want to toss my MBP in the dumpster from the roof of my office and give up digital photography when it runs slow and I need to get something out of it quickly.
Anyone have any suggestions? I really don't want to switch applications (too much of a PITA) and buying a new mac would put a crimp in me saving up for a Nikon D4.
I can feel my life slipping away while I wait for Aperture to slog through its machinations and let me edit and export my images...

Your workflow may be running out of RAM and therefore "paging out" to disk. Page outs slow operation a lot and can lead to instability. As noted, switching to from 64-bit to 32-bit mode will help RAM-starved workflows.
You can evaluate whether or not you have adequate RAM by looking at the Page Outs number under System Memory on the Activity Monitor app before starting a work session; recheck after working and if the page outs number increased significantly during operation your workflow is RAM-starved. Ignore the other info in Activity Monitor.
If page outs increase significantly during operation you can add RAM or simply try to run Aperture by itself. Switching from 64-bit operation to 32-bit operation will also make some additional RAM space available.
On my 2006 MBP with its max of 3 GB RAM I always did a restart prior to a heavy Aperture session to clear any memory leaks and make sure no other apps were open. Browsers in particular will often suck RAM Aperture would otherwise be using.
The problem with running a RAM-deficient workflow like I did is that along with slower operation, page outs can reduce overall stability - - and instability always seems to present at the worst times, like in the midst of processing a time-critical project. It does help a lot to keep a really really clean workflow.
If your test of page outs does show that you are paging to disk the speed of your drives and drives connectivity become even more important than normal. Drives slow as they fill so keep drives underfilled. No more than ~70% full is a good maximum guideline, but less full is faster. Use Firewire rather than USB for external drives when possible.
OS 10.7 does seem to utilize more RAM than OS 10.6 does, and that makes sense because over time evolving OSs and evolving apps take advantage of evolving hardware. I find excellent performance with 8 GB RAM on a 17" 2.2 GHz MBP and OS 10.6.8. I suggest that those of us on 10.6.8 you should avoid 10.7 Lion unless we have at least 8 GB RAM.
IMO all Aperture users who can should routinely bump RAM to at least 8 GB. Two good sources of third-party RAM (Apple overprices RAM) are Crucial and OWC http://eshop.macsales.com/.
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Report performance with Hierarchies

Hi
How to improve query performance with hierarchies. We have to do lot of navigation's in the query and the volume of data size very big.
Thanks
P G

HI,
chk this:
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/1955ba90-0201-0010-d3aa-8b2a4ef6bbb2
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/ce7fb368-0601-0010-64ba-fadc985a1f94
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/4c0ab590-0201-0010-bd9a-8332d8b4f09c
Query Performance Is "Aggregates" the way out for me?
/people/vikash.agrawal/blog/2006/04/17/query-performance-150-is-aggregates-the-way-out-for-me
° the OLAP cache is architected to store query result sets and to give all users access to those result sets.
If a user executes a query, the result set for that querys request can be stored in the OLAP cache; if that same query (or a derivative) is then executed by another user, the subsequent query request can be filled by accessing the result set already stored in the OLAP cache.
In this way, a query request filled from the OLAP cache is significantly faster than queries that receive their result set from database access
° The indexes that are created in the fact table for each dimension allow you to easily find and select the data
see http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/80/1a6473e07211d2acb80000e829fbfe/content.htm
° when you load data into the InfoCube, each request has its own request ID, which is included in the fact table in the packet dimension.
This (besides giving the possibility to manage/delete single request) increases the volume of data, and reduces performance in reporting, as the system has to aggregate with the request ID every time you execute a query. Using compressing, you can eliminate these disadvantages, and bring data from different requests together into one single request (request ID 0).
This function is critical, as the compressed data can no longer be deleted from the InfoCube using its request IDs and, logically, you must be absolutely certain that the data loaded into the InfoCube is correct.
see http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/ca/aa6437e7a4080ee10000009b38f842/content.htm
° by using partitioning you can split up the whole dataset for an InfoCube into several, smaller, physically independent and redundancy-free units. Thanks to this separation, performance is increased when reporting, or also when deleting data from the InfoCube.
see http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/33/dc2038aa3bcd23e10000009b38f8cf/content.htm
Hope it helps!
tHAK YOU,
dst

Are there Issues with poor performance with Maverick OS,

Are there issues with slow and reduced performance with Mavericks OS

check this
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/126081/10-9-2-slows-down-processes
or
this:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/25341556#25341556
I am doing a lot of analyses with 10.9.2 on a late 2013 MBP, and these analyses generally last hours or days. I observed that Maverick is slowing them down considerably for some reasons after few hours of computations, making it impossible for me to work with this computer...

Performance with the new Mac Pros?

I sold my old Mac Pro (first generation) a few months ago in anticipation of the new line-up. In the meantime, I purchased a i7 iMac and 12GB of RAM. This machine is faster than my old Mac for most Aperture operations (except disk-intensive stuff that I only do occasionally).
I am ready to purchase a "real" Mac, but I'm hesitating because the improvements just don't seem that great. I have two questions:
1. Has anyone evaluated qualitative performance with the new ATI 5870 or 5770? Long ago, Aperture seemed pretty much GPU-constrained. I'm confused about whether that's the case anymore.
2. Has anyone evaluated any of the new Mac Pro chips for general day-to-day use? I'm interested in processing through my images as quickly as possible, so the actual latency to demosaic and render from the raw originals (Canon 1-series) is the most important metric. The second thing is having reasonable performance for multiple brushed-in effect bricks.
I'm mostly curious if anyone has any experience to point to whether it's worth it -- disregarding the other advantages like expandability and nicer (matte) displays.
Thanks.
Ben

Thanks for writing. Please don't mind if I pick apart your statements.
"For an extra $200 the 5870 is a no brainer." I agree on a pure cost basis that it's not a hard decision. But I have a very quiet environment, and I understand this card can make a lot of noise. To pay money, end up with a louder machine, and on top of that realize no significant benefit would be a minor disaster.
So, the more interesting question is: has anyone actually used the 5870 and can compare it to previous cards? A 16-bit 60 megapixel image won't require even .5GB of VRAM if fully tiled into it, for example, so I have no ability, a priori, to prove to myself that it will matter. I guess I'm really hoping for real-world data. Perhaps you speak from this experience, Matthew? (I can't tell.)
Background work and exporting are helpful, but not as critical for my primary daily use. I know the CPU is also used for demosaicing or at least some subset of the render pipeline, because I have two computers that demonstrate vastly different render-from-raw response times with the same graphics card. Indeed, it is this lag that would be the most valuable of all for me to reduce. I want to be able to flip through a large shoot and see each image at 100% as instantaneously as possible. On my 2.8 i7 that process takes about 1 second on average (when Aperture doesn't get confused and mysteriously stop rendering 100% images).
Ben

Performance with Boot Camp/Gaming?

Hi,
I just acquired a MBP/2GHz IntelCD/2GB RAM/100GB/Superdrive, with Applecare. Can anyone comment about the performance with
Boot Camp -- running Windows XP SP2, and what the gaming graphics are like?
Appreciate it, thanks...
J.
Powerbook G4 [15" Titanium - DVI] Mac OS X (10.4.8) 667MHz; 1GB RAM; 80GB

Well, I didn't forget to mention what I did not know yet.... So that's not exactly correct..
As per Apple's support page, http://support.apple.com/specs/macbookpro/MacBook_Pro.html
My new computer does have 256MB of video memory...

Performance with external display

Hello,
when I'm connecting my 19'' TFT to the MacBook the performance (with the same applications runnig) is realy bad. It tooks longer to switch between apps and if I don't use an app for some time, it can took up to 30 sec to "reactivate" the app.
Because the HD is working when I switch apps, it looks like the OS is swapping. My question: Would it help to upgrade the MacBook to 2GB ram? AFAIC the intel card uses shared memory.
Thanks for your help
Till
MacBook 1.83 GHz/1GB Mac OS X (10.4.8)

How much RAM do you have? Remember that the MB does not have dedicated VRAM like some computers do and that it uses the system RAM to drive the graphics chipset.
I use my MB with the mini-DVI to DVI adapter to drive a 20" widescreen monitor without any of the problems that you describe, but I have 2GB of RAM. If you only have the stock 512MB of RAM, that may be part of what you are seeing.

Performance with LinkedList in java

Hello All,
Please suggest me any solution to further improve the performance with List.
The problem description is as follows:
I have a huge number of objects, lets say 10,000 , and need to store the objects in such a collection so that if i want to store an object at some particular index i , I get the best performance.
I suppose as I need indexed based access, using List makes the best sense as Lists are ordered.
Using LinkedList over ArrayList gives the better performance in the aforementioned context.
Is there are way I can further improve the performance of LinkedList while solving this particular problem
OR
Is there any other index based collection using that i get better performance than LinkedList?
Thanks in advance

The trouble with a LinkedList as implemented in the Java libraries is that if you want to insert at index 100, it has no option but to step through the first 100 links of the list to find the insert point. Likewise is you retrieve by index. The strength of the linked list approach is lost if you work by index and the List interface gives no other way to insert in the middle of the list. The natural interface for a linked list would include an extended Iterator with methods for insert and replace. Of course LinkedLists are fine when you insert first or last.
My guess would be that if your habitual insertion point was half way or more through the list then ArrayList would serve you better especially if you leave ample room for growth. Moving array elements up is probably not much more expensive, per element, than walking the linked list. Maybe 150% or thereabouts.
Much depends on how you retrieve, and how volatile the list is. Certainly if you are a read-mostly situation and cannot use an iterator then a LinkedList won't suit.

Lion performance with HDD?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for