LR on low-end hardware

I've been using LR since the late betas for basic image browsing and tagging. I've found it the smoothest and most painless tool for dealing with my RAW-format images.
I'd like to be able to shift most of these tasks over to my laptop. Not unexpectedly, LR doesn't seem too happy with the 1GHZ Pentium M notebook in questions (768MB RAM, library on 120GB 5400RPM external 2.5" HD connected via USB).
Is there anything I can do that will make at least the image-browsing part reasonably speedy? Is upgrading the RAM to 1.5GB, switching the external HD to an eSATA interface, or tweaking various settings likely to make an appreciable difference?
FWIW, the images are all 6MP NEF files, the notebook is a Thinkpad X40 running XP Pro, and my desktop machine whose LR performance I found adequate is a Mac Mini 1.66GHZ Core Duo w/120GB HD and 2GB RAM.
Thanks a bundle,
M Bernstein

RAM upgrade is probably the most important. I keep the library and preview files on my internal hard drive (got better performance than placing on external) and the photo files on an external HD. Once the preview files have been built, browsing is acceptable. Keep your preview files set to medium or low quality to reduce size. I have a 2GHz Centrino laptop with 1.5GB RAM and LR is very useable with the config I mentioned AFTER I wiped HD and reinstalled WinXP. Something about starting with a clean OS helps, then reinstall your apps selectively (watch out for NortonAV).
I also have a MacBookPro and you won't find the same level of performance on a comparable Mac machine. Current version of LR works better on Mac than Windows under comparable hardware specs.

Similar Messages

Editing in lower res for lower end hardware?

Hi guys
I just got done shooting 6hrs of footage of an event with the XH-A1. It was the first time I'd ever shot in HD and I'm finding that my laptop can't handle it. In premiere it's pausing and skipping, etc.
I have captured the video from the XH-A1 with HDSplit. The resulting files are .M2T Is there a way to somehow convert the clips I need into a lower res for editing, but then when I come to encode the result, it uses the full HD files?

ok thanks, this is starting to make sense now. One point. I converted some files to h.264 MP4 files. It appears that I can't add meta data to these mp4 files and indeed I may not be able to edit them in Premiere? Is that right? (I'm away from my PC at the moment, so can't check it).
If this is true and I can not edit h.264, then what should I convert to? Can I down sample the HDV M2T files to a SD format without loosing too much of the quality (over and above the obvious differences between HDV and SDV

Sh led also on low end routers

Hello all,
If I remember correctly it was possible to lit up led's on a GSR router...(12k) through the cli remotely....
Here comes perhaps a strange or odd request for lower end type of routers (and possible also switches)
Would it be possible to have a command in the Cisco IOS, to light up any light emitting diode’s in a certain fashion? So field engineers know for sure they are hitting the right spot when they are looking for equipment in particular area’s?
Cheers

Hello all,
If I remember correctly it was possible to lit up led's on a GSR router...(12k) through the cli remotely....
Here comes perhaps a strange or odd request for lower end type of routers (and possible also switches)
Would
it be possible to have a command in the Cisco IOS, to light up any
light emitting diode’s in a certain fashion? So field engineers know
for sure they are hitting the right spot when they are looking for
equipment in particular area’s?
Cheers
Hi,
Yes you are right Show led is used to display the current status of all line card Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), use the show led EXEC command. show led [slot-number] but this command was introduced in realease 11.2(09)GSbut in small end routers you can usethe following commands to display and verify the hardware features, enter the following commands:
•show version—Displays the system hardware version; the installed software version; the names and sources of configuration files; the boot images; and the amount of installed DRAM, NVRAM, and flash memory.
•show diag—Lists and displays diagnostic information about the installed controllers, interface processors, and port adapters; typical examples are network modules, interface cards (VICs, WICs, HWICs), and advanced integration modules (AIMs).
Hope to help
Ganesh.H

Why doesn't the volume control settings allow a greater range (on the low end)?

Maybe my ears are really sensitive, but for every iphone I've had, the lowest volume is not low enough. My phone is often louder than I want in my headphones even at the lowest setting. I find myself trying to lower the volume but ending up in silence. After putting it back up to the lowest setting, I end up clicking down again a few minutes later because it's too loud for my surroundings and situation. It's a huge volume jump from the lowest setting to completely off, and alot of times the lowest setting is too loud (even with normal buds or headphones).
The volume limiter setting only limits the upper end, but doesn't change the lower end (just makes the 16 set increments smaller in that reduced range). I know there is also an option to turn down the volume of individual songs in iTunes options, but this problem applies to all aspects of the iphone beyond just my music library (Music apps, Videos, etc.).
Why hasn't apple expanded the lower volume limits? There has to be a way, or is this not possible? Can anybody think of a way to fix this problem?

Meg St._Clair wrote:
Look for headsets with a volume control.
I did exactly this for awhile. I used to have Skullcandy Asyms with the inline volume attenuator (wheel). They've since discontinued them, and my 5 pairs are having wire connectivity issues. All their current models have iphone like volume mechanisms. The problem is most headphones with volume controls tap into the phones own volume control (so the set 16 volume increments). I also looked into using a dongle attenuator, but having the dongle hanging off the phone is just awkward and not easily adjustable.
I don't know why there can't be some form of internal attenuator option, or some other way of extending the lower range of volume.
Does anyone else have this problem of the iPhone being too loud in semi-quiet environments?

"middle end" vs "low end" mbp

How much better is the middle-end vs the low end, with no upgrades. Will they both play all games now and probably in the next 3 or 4 years(i realize time-viewing is quite hard), at any resolution i dont care THAT much, although it is also nice to have nice graphics, above 25 fps. Also they both have the santa rosa chip set right? i read somewhere only 2.4 ghz and up are santa rosa

If you take the hard drive and RAM out of the question the only real differences between the two 15" models is .2GHz processor clock speed and 128MB VRAM. All else is the same or attainable via a CTO order.
Personally, unless you're a big gamer or do 3D graphics work you're not going to not much of a a difference, if any, between them. The processor difference won't even be noticed.

Test program running taking much more time on high end server T5440 than low end server T5220

Hi all,
I have written the following program and run on both T5440 [1.4 GHz, 95 GB RAM, 32 cores(s), 256 logical (virtual) processor(s),] and T5220 [(UltraSPARC-T2 (chipid 0, clock 1165 MH) , 8GB RAM, 1 core, 8 virtual processors )] on same OS version. I found that T5540 server takes more time than T5220. Please find below the details.
test1.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
#define NUM_OF_THREADS 20
struct ABCDEF {
char A[1024];
char B[1024];
void *start_func(void *)
    long long i = 6000;
    while(i--)
                ABCDEF*             sdf = new ABCDEF;
                delete sdf;
                sdf = NULL;
    return NULL;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
    pthread_t tid[50];
    for(int i=0; i<NUM_OF_THREADS; i++)
                pthread_create(&tid[i], NULL, start_func, NULL);
                cout<<"Creating thread " << i <<endl;
    for(int i=0; i<NUM_OF_THREADS; i++)
                pthread_join(tid[i], NULL);
                cout<<"Waiting for thread " << i <<endl;
After executing the above program on T5440 takes :
real 0.78
user 3.94s
sys 0.05
After executing the above program on T5220 takes :
real 0.23
user 1.43s
sys 0.03
It seems that T5440 which is high end server takes almost 3 times more time than T5220 which is low end server.
However, I have one more observation. I tried the following program :
test2.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
#define NUM_OF_THREADS 20
struct ABCDEF {
char A[1024];
char B[1024];
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
    long long i = 6000000;
    while(i--)
        ABCDEF* sdf = new ABCDEF;
        delete sdf;
        sdf = NULL;
    return 0;
It seems that T5440 server is fast in this case as compaired to T5220 server.
Could anyone please help me out the exact reason for this behaviour as my application is slow as well on this T5440 server. I have posted earlier as well for the same issue.
Thanks in advance !!!
regards,
Sanjay

You already asked this question...
48 hours earlier, and in the same Solaris forum space
Repeating the post isn't going to get you a response any faster, and actually now have people NOT respond because you are not showing any patience.
These are end-user community forums, not a place to expect Oracle Technical Support.   There is no obligation that there be a response.
If you have a business-critical issue and hope to get accurate and timely response, then use your service contract credentials to open a Support request.
This new redundant post is locked.
Edit:
It appears that at the same time the O.P. posted this redundant thread, they also posted the same question to at least one other forum web site:
http://www.unix.com/solaris/229269-test-program-running-taking-much-more-time-high-end-server-t5440-than-low-end-server-t5220.html

Introducing Lowarch - Arch for low-end systems

Some of you might remember that I mentioned my plans of making an Arch install cd for low end systems. I've come quite far with this project now.
First, I must say that it was a lot harder than I first expected. So I can say I have learned a lot in the process.
Second, before I start ramblig about where I am in the process, I'll just outline what the plan is:
The best Linux distribution is Arch Linux, because of it's speed, simplicity and elegance in design. I often get hold of some old laptops which are too old for Arch (i586 normally, but also i486). I have tried a lot of distros made for low end systems, but I always end up thinking, ah how wonderful it would have been to have Arch on this. It would have been the perfect distro for this machine.
And the more I thought about it, I realised that even though Arch is perfect for super modern systems, it would be even more perfect for old systems, because of it's speed and simplicity, and not least the choice of packages.
Some have started projects to port Arch to i586. I don't think that is the best solution. A lot of Arch isn't really useful on these machines. Therefore I decided to make a new distro based on Arch, where the main difference is the choice of packages. You don't want to run a video editor on a i586. For now I've called the distro Lowarch.
Here's what I have done so far:
1st try:
Oh, I just change the compiler flags to i486 in /etc/makepkg.conf and start compiling all the packages. That worked great. Almost everything in base compiled fine. Until I started to notice the strange i686's coming up in all the ./configure outputs, and when I tried to install some of it on my i586, a lot of Illegal instruction messages came up.
After doing some research, I understood that some programs make static links to libraries, all of which, of course, are i686 coded on my system. I realised I needed to do this differently. Of course I didn't want to do all the compiling on a 486 machine.
2nd try:
I made a Cross Linux From Scratch system, compiled for i486. Even that I had to make twice, for a lot of programs check what processor they are running on and compile for that. So the second time I used a so-called uname-hack. A small kernel module which makes the kernel report that it's running on an i486 machine.
When I had a basic build system, I compiled pacman, and started to build packages. This time I had to take care of the order for dependencies to work out. First kernel-headers, glibc, etc. I installed one package at a time into an empty directory with the pacman -r option.
After having the base system compiled, I booted it, and (using the uname-hack still) continued to compile the other packages in current, and the ones that I wanted from extra.
It was really hard, since a lot of packages just don't compile with recent glibc and gcc. I have learned a lot about writing small patches just to make gcc happy or take away symbols not used anymore etc. The dependencies in the pkgbuilds are not always correct when it comes to building packages. Sometimes, and this is the most frustrating, packages seems to build correctly, but because some library wasn't installed or whatever, a few files are missing from the package, and I have no way to know, untill something goes wrong. Often this wrong is a package not compiling because include files are missing.
Another problem was to make an installer. I decided I just wanted a simple installer, like Arch has. So I compiled busybox and made an almost exact copy of the 0.7.2 install cd, just compiled for i486, and with my package selection on it.
What's left to do:
1. Look more closely at the package selection. If there are people who are interested in this we can have some nice discussions about this. There are a lot of packages I just don't know what is for, and therefore I don't dare take them away.
2. Clean up the PKGBUILDs, e.g take away references it the i686 and 64bit arch.
3. Compile the whole set of packages again, just in case.
4. Releasing it.
I've set up a wordpress page at lowarch.linuxophic.org, which is empty now, but where I'll put out a link to the iso when it's ready.

Yes, I think it would be smart to check out the PKGBUILD once in a while and see if they are still able to build packages. It seems this is only done when new releases arrive.
The thing about old programs not compiling with newer glibc and gcc or other libraries is unavoidable, and there's an unending stream of patches to address this issue. If a package hasn't had a release for a year, it's quite common that a change in a library it depends on will break the compilation. When or if new releases come, they should usually fix this.
Of course, PKGBUILDs of current packages should work with a current system, not with a system from last year, if their supposed to be of any use. But it's a huge job to keep this up to date at all times, and you need some programming skills to do it, and I would rather have the devs focus on more important things, like updating packages and making everything work even better.

Browser for low-end laptop

Hi,
my girlfriends laptop is running arch linux (I installed it for her a year ago...). The problem is that it's not a high performance machine but rather low-end instead. It's an "Acer Extensa 5635Z" (Intel Pentium Dual Core T4200, Intel GMA, 2 gig ram, some kind of slow laptop hdd...). All she does on this machine is browsing the web (facebook, last.fm, simfy.de) and listening to music. Occasionally she may rip some audio cds and stuff... The only process that literally kills the machine is firefox and/or flash. She tends to open around 30 - 90 tabs with all kinds of facebook stuff where it seems to be the case that everyone is posting stupid youtube "links" all the time. She needs that many tabs for all the stuff she plans to review. This means she treats "tabs" as some kind of "to read" shelf. I have tried to get here to use bookmarks but this feels to "clumsy" for her and she says she would "forget" about stuff when its not "opened".
This situation will not get better. So I'm desperately in search of a very light browser that may enable her to handle the load she produces. Can't use chromium because it has no "search bar" and I'm not getting here to put search terms into the location bar. We tried midori but it died a segfault death soon after...
The desktop environment we're using is xfce at the moment. I could go as low as fluxbox but I fear that won't improve much. Any ideas?

I have a much low end computer (4 years old computer 1.2 Gb RAM Celeron M 1.6 Ghz processor). Your laptop is powerful to run the browser of your choice (choosing a different one would not make a real difference). I now prefer google chrome (I use the open source version chromium): it seems more responsive than Firefox (you can search in the address bar, I do not see the problem). The performance problems most probably comes from flash animations and javascript. If you use Firefox, I suggest to install flasblock (block all flash animation unless clicked, possibility to whitelist some domain). For javascript, some sites may be a processor hog. Install the yesscript extension: it enable javascript by default but allow to stop it by clicking on an icon. I suggest you to install a CPU monitor, so you can easily identify which tabs pose problems and block javascript/flash inside them.
Now 30-90 tabs is a lot. It might still work by making sure javascript/Flash are blocked in all but one tab. But maybe it would be better to proceed differently. Putting bookmarks on the bookmark bar seems a good idea. It seems that it make little difference for the user: you see the sites in the bookmark bar instead of the tab bar. Only one tab is open at once anyway.
Last edited by olive (2011-07-19 20:15:38)

I do a radio show, when I pre-record i get a very low end hiss, almost sounds like gain is too high, but its not. If Im live to the station its fine. It only happens when I record. Is there a way to set audition NOT to record that low end sound?

I use an Allen & Heath broadcast board. When I record to my computer for later broadcast there is a low end hiss/hum barely noticeable when im speaking BUT very prominent when there is a quiet moment.
Sounds like gain may be tooo high, BUT its not. When I do a LIVE broadcast using same equipment all is fine!
Thoughts

Well, several thoughts here...
First, what are you using to get from the A&H mixer into your computer and is it in the chain when you broadcast live? I ask because a lot of built in sound cards are pretty noisy and that could be the source of the problem, fixable with even a very cheap external USB interface
Second, if the hiss actually starts at the mic/mixer, I know the A&H XB series has a high pass filter on every mic channel. Have you engaged that?
That said, it's pretty rare for hiss to be such a low frequency that the high pass filter will kill it. You may get on better with the Noise Reduction feature in Audition, applied after the recording.
Anyhow, to repeat how I started, what's your signal chain when recording and how does it differ from when you go live?

How to better improve the playback efficiency of HD videos on Premiere Pro CC for low-end computers?

Title explains it all really!
The playback of selected files on the upper left and right box are glitchy and slow when playing back, which makes it near impossible (or just really frustrating) to properly sync with other video clips and audio.
On lower-end video editing programs, the solution I made for this was applying Speed Change effect, but not adjusting the speed by keeping it at 100.
Details of my computer are : AMD E-350 Processor; 1.60 GHz, 3 GB RAM, Windows Vista 64bit
Thanks in advance

Win7 64bit will use almost all of your 3Gig of ram to load, leaving almost nothing to run PPro
You need to buy or build a better computer
Buy a Desktop Video Editing PC
-http://www.adkvideoediting.com/
-http://www.sharbor.com/
Here Build a Desktop Video Editing PC
-3 price level ideas in http://www.pacifier.com/~jtsmith/ADOBE.HTM
-http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page
-what PC to build http://forums.adobe.com/thread/947698
-2 how to build videos http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1104182
-another video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1145366
-another video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1132363
-planning & Building http://ppbm7.com/index.php/intro-part-1
-memory for LGA2011 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1098759
-an Adobe FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878520
-http://www.shawnlam.ca/2012/premiere-pro-cs6-video-editing-computer-build/
-http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E/0xe9b142f408a2 b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx
-several more links http://forums.adobe.com/thread/815798
-build tuning http://ppbm7.com/index.php/final-results
-http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Professional-GPU-Accelerat ion-502/

WCCP on lower end switches

Hi - I'm searching for a lower end switch that supports WCCP. According to the feature navigator the 3550 is the only one that supports wccp. The only 3550 still available is the DC version, for which you can only get the SMI version and not the EMI version that supports wccp. According to the CCO the 3560 and 3750 does not support wccp.
Thanks

Hi,
Your research is correct - the 3550 was the only low-end layer-3 switch which supported wccp. (Only Cisco knows why the others don't support it)
Another alternative, if you really need all those switch ports, is something like a 2800 series with either a 16 or 36 port etherswitch module (NM-16ESW or NMD-36-ESW).
HTH
Andrew.

Adobe Reader for Low End PCs.

Hello, I'm an air ambulance pilot and I'm donating several desktop pcs to a rural school in a mountainous province in the Philippines. I bought them by bulk in Hong Kong and some of them are low end. I was wondering what version of adobe reader works well with low end pcs? The latest versions make the low end pcs crawl in performance. The pcs are using windows xp os.

Consider other PDF readers. I recommend the free Foxit Reader for old computers it's small and fast and doesn't carry all the garbage and vulnerabilities of the Adobe software.
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/

Buy low end Mac Pro now, upgrade later?

Wondering if it makes sense to buy a low end 2ghz Mac Pro now, and then upgrade later (to for example, higher ghz or maybe a Clovertown cpu).
The difference now is about $300 for a 2ghz versus a 2.66ghz, which I suppose would get me by for some time. Cpu upgrade later would mean having to sell the old cpus, can PCs use these as well as Macs? That would certainly make them easier to sell, and then buy new faster cpus or even a new processor class.

It depends on whether you use the MacPro and applications that benefit from quad-core, from faster cpu, or whether you are memory bound.
I rarely need or use iDVD or iLife and the 2GHz model is plenty for my needs it seems.
I figured the cost of 2x512 extra from RAM (1GB isn't enough you really want 2GB, more if you run DTP or video editing) and I wanted to buy a 10K Raptor which I (and anyone) would find welcome addition.
Before, my SP G4 MDD 1.25 was just not cutting it and was only an 'interim' upgrade from an even older system while I waited for something better than the 2005 G5 series.
Also, 2GHz, for me, is fine and more than enough. If I was doing it again, I would have gotten the 2.66GHz just because it would have shipped faster
Games? professional? bragging rights? I would never plan on having to upgrade cpu, or selling the OEM processor (might want them someday).

Low-end RAID - Ugh (Or how to create partition level arrays)

Ok... I got a new mobo and my system is up and running!
Now let me tell you how I "want" to configure my drives.
I have two Hitachi 160 SATA drives. I would like to create two RAID partitions. Configured like so:
SATA1 SATA2
20GB + 20GB @ Mirrored = 20GB C: (For Windows, etc.) (Safe)
140GB + 140GB @ Stripped = 280GB D: (For everything else ) (Fast)
The problem is that the stupid Nvidia RAID BIOS only seems to support creating drive level arrays and not partition level!
I only have expierence with high-end server RAID controllers and doing what I have layed out is perfectly possible. Is this just something that "low-end" RAID controllers do not support?
Thanks!

Unfortunatly that is true, this controller does not support partition level arrays, only disc level.
Be well....

Low end Apple supported printer

Since I could not find a driver for my Dell V305 printer, can anyone recommend a low end all in one printer that will work with OS X 10.6.1?
golfer man

Dell does not actually manufacture printers. They are re-badged printers from other makers. So it is possible that the other printer's driver will work.
A Google search on "Dell V305 Mac" suggests that it is actually the same printer as a Lexmark X4650. So you might try selecting that printer driver, if it is already installed, or going to the Lexmark support web site to download the Mac driver for it.

LR on low-end hardware

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for