LR2 64-bit slower than 32-bit (Mac)

I ran a test a while back with Lightroom 1.3.1, generating 1:1 previews on a test directory of images:
http://www.rassoc.com/gregr/weblog/2008/02/24/mac-pro-performance/
On a Mac pro 2.8 GHz 8-core machine with 12GB of RAM, I found I could generate 211 1:1 previews for my directory in about 5:36, or 1.59 seconds/image.
I've found Lightroom 2, in 32-bit mode on the same machine, to run roughly the same speed.
However - running Lightroom 2 in 64-bit mode on this same machine takes 7:23, or 2.10 seconds per image. It's typically using >500% of CPU.
Why is it so much slower running 64-bit?

My results are repeatable; 1:1 preview generation takes about 30% longer using 64-bit than 32-bit. I opened a support ticket on this (case number 180331555) - here is the response from Adobe:
I understand that Lightroom# takes longer to render previews in 64-bit
mode than in 32-bit mode.
I am able to duplicate this basic behavior when rendering a relatively
small batch of previews in Lightroom.
It is not expected that all operations in 64-bit mode will perform
faster. Memory access generally takes longer in 64-bit mode due to
having to address a larger memory space.
Performance benefit should be most noticeable when performing operations
that use more than 4GB of memory. At this point, the 32-bit application
will experience a large performance penalty due to increased hard drive
access.
Hmm. Sounds like they were able to reproduce the behavior I see, but I can't think of why memory access should be slower in 64-bit.

Similar Messages

  • Query of query - running slower on 64 bit CF than 32 bit CF

    Greetings...
    I am seeing behavior where pages that use query-of-query run slower on 64-bit Coldfusion 9.01 than on 32-bit Coldfusion 9.01.
    My server specs are : dual processer virtual machine, 4 GIG ram, Windows 2008 Datacenter Server r2 64-bit, Coldfusion 9.01. Note that the coldfusion is literally "straight out of the box", and is using all default settings - the only thing I configured in CF is a single datasource.
    The script I am using to benchmark this runs a query that returns 20,000 rows with fields id, firstname, lastname, email, city, datecreated. I then loop through all 20,000 records, and for each record, I do a query-of-query (on the same master query) to find any other record where the lastname matches that of the record I'm currently on. Note that I'm only interested in using this process for comparative benchmarking purposes, and I know that the process could be written more efficiently.
    Here are my observed execution times for both 64-bit and 32-bit Coldfusion (in seconds) on the same machine.
    64 bit CF 9.01: 63,49,52,52,52,48,50,49,54 (avg=52 seconds)
    32 bit CF 9.01: 47,45,43,43,45,41,44,42,46 (avg=44 seconds)
    It appears from this that 64-bit CF performs worse than 32-bit CF when doing query-of-query operations. Has anyone made similar observations, and is there any way I can tune the environment to improve 64 bit performance?
    Thanks for any help you can provide!
    By the way, here's the code that is generating these results:
    <!--- Allrecs query returns 20000 rows --->
    <CFQUERY NAME="ALLRECS" DATASOURCE="MyDsn">
        SELECT * FROM MyTBL
    </CFQUERY>
    <CFLOOP QUERY="ALLRECS">
        <CFQUERY NAME="SAMELASTNAME" DBTYPE="QUERY">
            SELECT * FROM ALLRECS
            WHERE LN=<CFQUERYPARAM VALUE="#ALLRECS.LN#" CFSQLTYPE="CF_SQL_VARCHAR">
            AND ID<><CFQUERYPARAM VALUE="#AllRecs.ID#" CFSQLTYPE="CF_SQL_INTEGER">
        </CFQUERY>
        <CFIF SameLastName.RecordCount GT 20>
            #AllRecs.LN#, #AllRecs.FN# : #SameLastName.RecordCount# other records with same lastname<BR>
        </CFIF>
    </CFLOOP>

    BoBear2681 wrote:
    ..follow-up: ..Thanks for the follow-up. I'll be interested to hear the progress (or otherwise, as the case may be).
    As an aside. I got sick of trying to deal with Clip because it could only handle very small Clip sizes. AFAIR it was 1 second of 44.1 KHz stereo. From that point, I developed BigClip.
    Unfortunately BigClip as it stands is even less able to fulfil your functional requirement than Clip, in that only one BigClip can be playing at a time. Further, it can be blocked by other sound applications (e.g. VLC Media Player, Flash in a web page..) or vice-versa.

  • 32 bit faster than 64 bit

    I ran a DAQ program on LabVIEW 2011 32 bit and it used 5-6% CPU according to the Task Manager.
    I ran the same program under LabVIEW 2013 64 bit and it used 8-9% CPU according to the Task Manager.
    I thought the 64 bit version would be more CPU effecient than the 32 bit version.  What's up?
    Thanks,
    Mark
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    mlevine wrote:
    It wasn't the extended address space but the accumulator size that should get faster performance.  I'd need less CPU cycles to do double precision math on a 64 bit processor than on a 32 bit processor.  Of course if LabVIEW 32 bit uses the 64 bit  accumulators than I wouldn't expect the CPU load to change.  Anyway the sales guy said I'd see a 20% improvement in execution time.  I don't see how that's possible with the CPU utilization has increased for the 64 bit version.
    You seem to be throwing everything ( N bit processor, N bit LabVIEW, N bit OS, N bit address space, N bit accumulators, etc.) into one big blurry pile. We had a similar discussion a long time ago, see my comments here.
    Except for the increased address space, using 64bit LabVIEW does not give you any significant advantage.
    (Quite a while ago, I was doing some testing and recompiled my DLLs under 64bit intel Fortran and build a LabVIEW 64bit application of my EPR fitting program. The program contains an extensive benchmarking facility.  The 64 bit application was nearly identical in speed (or even slightly slower) and thus I abandoned the idea of potentially moving to 64bit.)
    Runing LabVIEW 32bit on a 64bit OS gives you access to a full 4GB of RAM, while running the same on a 32 bit OS gives you less (2 or 3GB max), so going to a 64bit OS for a 32 bit application has clear advantages (details). Upgrading to 64bit LabVIEW is typically not worth it and you get less support for certain drivers and toolkits.
    LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

  • Why is Photoshop CC 64-bit is slower than 32-bit?

    I have a very powerful system.
    HP Z820 Workstation
    Intel Xeon CPU E5-2670 0 @ 2.60 GHz (2 processors)
    64 GB RAM
    64-bit OS
    Windows 7 Pro
    Nvidiea GeForce GTX 690 (2 GPUs) 4 GB VRAM ea.
    But here's the deal. When I'm painting or drawing down to the pixels within Photoshop CC 64-bit, it crawls, the lag is so great!  I have caching on an SSD card even.  Then I had an idea, I switched to the 32-bit version of Photoshop CC and everything is good, it's faster than the 64-bit version. 
    What gives?!?  Why would the 32-bit version be faster than the 64-bit version?

    I know, it's VERY odd. I can actually do things faster in 32-bit mode Photoshop CC. I'm painting a very large digital painting. 180 dpi, at 40" x 24" (for print) - When I first started painting it, I was using Adobe Photoshop CS5 and it was very smooth to paint it, very fast.  But now I've upgraded to Photoshop CC and the 64-bit is VERY slow, and lags terribly.   Then just on a whim, I opened up Photoshop CC 32-bit and could paint just the way I did with the old CS5, very fast and smooth.  It's like Photoshop CC 64-bit was a major step down in performance.
    Here's my system info.
    Adobe Photoshop Version: 14.2.1 (14.2.1 20140207.r.570 2014/02/07:23:00:00) x64
    Operating System: Windows 7 64-bit
    Version: 6.1 Service Pack 1
    System architecture: Intel CPU Family:6, Model:13, Stepping:7 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, HyperThreading
    Physical processor count: 16
    Logical processor count: 32
    Processor speed: 2593 MHz
    Built-in memory: 65461 MB
    Free memory: 54265 MB
    Memory available to Photoshop: 59675 MB
    Memory used by Photoshop: 60 %
    Image tile size: 1024K
    Image cache levels: 4
    Font Preview: Medium
    TextComposer: Latin
    Display: 1
    Display Bounds: top=0, left=0, bottom=1080, right=1920
    Display: 2
    Display Bounds: top=0, left=1920, bottom=1080, right=3840
    Display: 3
    Display Bounds: top=0, left=-1920, bottom=1200, right=0
    OpenGL Drawing: Enabled.
    OpenGL Allow Old GPUs: Not Detected.
    OpenGL Drawing Mode: Advanced
    OpenGL Allow Normal Mode: True.
    OpenGL Allow Advanced Mode: True.
    AIFCoreInitialized=1
    AIFOGLInitialized=1
    OGLContextCreated=1
    NumGPUs=2
    gpu[0].OGLVersion="3.0"
    gpu[0].MemoryMB=2048
    gpu[0].RectTextureSize=16384
    gpu[0].Renderer="GeForce GTX 690/PCIe/SSE2"
    gpu[0].RendererID=4488
    gpu[0].Vendor="NVIDIA Corporation"
    gpu[0].VendorID=4318
    gpu[0].HasNPOTSupport=1
    gpu[0].DriverVersion="9.18.13.2723"
    gpu[0].Driver="nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um"
    gpu[0].DriverDate="20130912000000.000000-000"
    gpu[0].CompileProgramGLSL=1
    gpu[0].TestFrameBuffer=1
    gpu[0].OCLPresent=1
    gpu[0].OCLVersion="1.1"
    gpu[0].CUDASupported=1
    gpu[0].CUDAVersion="4.2.1"
    gpu[0].OCLBandwidth=1.50733e+011
    gpu[0].glGetString[GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION]="4.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler"
    gpu[0].glGetProgramivARB[GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB][GL_MAX_PROGRAM_INSTRUCTIONS_ARB]=[16384]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_TEXTURE_UNITS]=[4]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_COMBINED_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[192]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[32]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[32]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_DRAW_BUFFERS]=[8]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_UNIFORM_COMPONENTS]=[4096]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_FRAGMENT_UNIFORM_COMPONENTS]=[2048]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VARYING_FLOATS]=[124]
    gpu[0].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_ATTRIBS]=[16]
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_PROGRAM]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_SHADER]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_SHADER]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_EXT_FRAMEBUFFER_OBJECT]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_TEXTURE_FLOAT]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_OCCLUSION_QUERY]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_BUFFER_OBJECT]=1
    gpu[0].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_SHADER_TEXTURE_LOD]=1
    gpu[1].OGLVersion="3.0"
    gpu[1].MemoryMB=2048
    gpu[1].RectTextureSize=16384
    gpu[1].Renderer="GeForce GTX 690/PCIe/SSE2"
    gpu[1].RendererID=4488
    gpu[1].Vendor="NVIDIA Corporation"
    gpu[1].VendorID=4318
    gpu[1].HasNPOTSupport=1
    gpu[1].DriverVersion="9.18.13.2723"
    gpu[1].Driver="nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um"
    gpu[1].DriverDate="20130912000000.000000-000"
    gpu[1].CompileProgramGLSL=1
    gpu[1].TestFrameBuffer=1
    gpu[1].OCLPresent=1
    gpu[1].OCLVersion="1.1"
    gpu[1].CUDASupported=1
    gpu[1].CUDAVersion="4.2.1"
    gpu[1].OCLBandwidth=1.50556e+011
    gpu[1].glGetString[GL_SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION]="4.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler"
    gpu[1].glGetProgramivARB[GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB][GL_MAX_PROGRAM_INSTRUCTIONS_ARB]=[16384]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_TEXTURE_UNITS]=[4]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_COMBINED_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[192]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[32]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_TEXTURE_IMAGE_UNITS]=[32]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_DRAW_BUFFERS]=[8]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_UNIFORM_COMPONENTS]=[4096]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_FRAGMENT_UNIFORM_COMPONENTS]=[2048]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VARYING_FLOATS]=[124]
    gpu[1].glGetIntegerv[GL_MAX_VERTEX_ATTRIBS]=[16]
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_PROGRAM]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_SHADER]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_FRAGMENT_SHADER]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_EXT_FRAMEBUFFER_OBJECT]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_TEXTURE_RECTANGLE]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_TEXTURE_FLOAT]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_OCCLUSION_QUERY]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_VERTEX_BUFFER_OBJECT]=1
    gpu[1].extension[AIF::OGL::GL_ARB_SHADER_TEXTURE_LOD]=1
    License Type: Subscription
    Serial number:
    Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC (64 Bit)\
    Temporary file path: C:\Users\djackson\AppData\Local\Temp\
    Photoshop scratch has async I/O enabled
    Scratch volume(s):
      Y:\, 238.5G, 152.3G free
    Required Plug-ins folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC (64 Bit)\Required\Plug-Ins\
    Primary Plug-ins folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC (64 Bit)\Plug-ins\
    Installed components:
       ACE.dll   ACE 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       adbeape.dll   Adobe APE 2013/02/04-09:52:32   0.1160850   0.1160850
       AdobeLinguistic.dll   Adobe Linguisitc Library   7.0.0  
       AdobeOwl.dll   Adobe Owl 2013/10/25-12:15:59   5.0.24   79.547804
       AdobePDFL.dll   PDFL 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.508720   79.508720
       AdobePIP.dll   Adobe Product Improvement Program   7.0.0.1786  
       AdobeXMP.dll   Adobe XMP Core 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.154911   79.154911
       AdobeXMPFiles.dll   Adobe XMP Files 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.154911   79.154911
       AdobeXMPScript.dll   Adobe XMP Script 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.154911   79.154911
       adobe_caps.dll   Adobe CAPS   7,0,0,21  
       AGM.dll   AGM 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       ahclient.dll    AdobeHelp Dynamic Link Library   1,8,0,31  
       aif_core.dll   AIF   5.0   79.534508
       aif_ocl.dll   AIF   5.0   79.534508
       aif_ogl.dll   AIF   5.0   79.534508
       amtlib.dll   AMTLib (64 Bit)   7.0.0.249 BuildVersion: 7.0; BuildDate: Thu Nov 14 2013 15:55:50)   1.000000
       ARE.dll   ARE 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       AXE8SharedExpat.dll   AXE8SharedExpat 2011/12/16-15:10:49   66.26830   66.26830
       AXEDOMCore.dll   AXEDOMCore 2011/12/16-15:10:49   66.26830   66.26830
       Bib.dll   BIB 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       BIBUtils.dll   BIBUtils 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       boost_date_time.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       boost_signals.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       boost_system.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       boost_threads.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       cg.dll   NVIDIA Cg Runtime   3.0.00007  
       cgGL.dll   NVIDIA Cg Runtime   3.0.00007  
       CIT.dll   Adobe CIT   2.1.6.30929   2.1.6.30929
       CITThreading.dll   Adobe CITThreading   2.1.6.30929   2.1.6.30929
       CoolType.dll   CoolType 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.548223   79.548223
       dvaaudiodevice.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvacore.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvamarshal.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvamediatypes.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvaplayer.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvatransport.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dvaunittesting.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       dynamiclink.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       ExtendScript.dll   ExtendScript 2013/10/30-13:12:12   79.546835   79.546835
       FileInfo.dll   Adobe XMP FileInfo 2013/10/25-03:51:33   79.154511   79.154511
       filter_graph.dll   AIF   5.0   79.534508
       icucnv40.dll   International Components for Unicode 2011/11/15-16:30:22    Build gtlib_3.0.16615  
       icudt40.dll   International Components for Unicode 2011/11/15-16:30:22    Build gtlib_3.0.16615  
       imslib.dll   IMSLib DLL   7.0.0.145  
       JP2KLib.dll   JP2KLib 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.248139   79.248139
       libifcoremd.dll   Intel(r) Visual Fortran Compiler   10.0 (Update A)  
       libiomp5md.dll   Intel(R) OMP Runtime Library   5.0  
       libmmd.dll   Intel(r) C Compiler, Intel(r) C++ Compiler, Intel(r) Fortran Compiler   12.0  
       LogSession.dll   LogSession   2.1.2.1785  
       mediacoreif.dll   DVA Product   7.0.0  
       MPS.dll   MPS 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.535029   79.535029
       msvcm80.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005   8.00.50727.6195  
       msvcm90.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2008   9.00.30729.1  
       msvcp100.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2010   10.00.40219.1  
       msvcp80.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005   8.00.50727.6195  
       msvcp90.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2008   9.00.30729.1  
       msvcr100.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2010   10.00.40219.1  
       msvcr80.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2005   8.00.50727.6195  
       msvcr90.dll   Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2008   9.00.30729.1  
       PatchMatch.dll   PatchMatch 2013/10/29-11:47:16   79.542390   79.542390
       pdfsettings.dll   Adobe PDFSettings   1.04  
       Photoshop.dll   Adobe Photoshop CC   CC  
       Plugin.dll   Adobe Photoshop CC   CC  
       PlugPlugOwl.dll   Adobe(R) CSXS PlugPlugOwl Standard Dll (64 bit)   4.2.0.36  
       PSArt.dll   Adobe Photoshop CC   CC  
       PSViews.dll   Adobe Photoshop CC   CC  
       SCCore.dll   ScCore 2013/10/30-13:12:12   79.546835   79.546835
       ScriptUIFlex.dll   ScriptUIFlex 2013/10/30-13:12:12   79.546835   79.546835
       svml_dispmd.dll   Intel(r) C Compiler, Intel(r) C++ Compiler, Intel(r) Fortran Compiler   12.0  
       tbb.dll   Intel(R) Threading Building Blocks for Windows   4, 1, 2012, 1003  
       tbbmalloc.dll   Intel(R) Threading Building Blocks for Windows   4, 1, 2012, 1003  
       updaternotifications.dll   Adobe Updater Notifications Library   7.0.1.102 (BuildVersion: 1.0; BuildDate: BUILDDATETIME)   7.0.1.102
       WRServices.dll   WRServices Mon Feb 25 2013 16:09:10   Build 0.19078   0.19078
    Required plug-ins:
       3D Studio 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Accented Edges 14.2.1
       Adaptive Wide Angle 14.2.1
       Angled Strokes 14.2.1
       Average 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Bas Relief 14.2.1
       BMP 14.2.1
       Camera Raw 8.3
       Camera Raw Filter 8.3
       Chalk & Charcoal 14.2.1
       Charcoal 14.2.1
       Chrome 14.2.1
       Cineon 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Clouds 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Collada 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Color Halftone 14.2.1
       Colored Pencil 14.2.1
       CompuServe GIF 14.2.1
       Conté Crayon 14.2.1
       Craquelure 14.2.1
       Crop and Straighten Photos 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Crop and Straighten Photos Filter 14.2.1
       Crosshatch 14.2.1
       Crystallize 14.2.1
       Cutout 14.2.1
       Dark Strokes 14.2.1
       De-Interlace 14.2.1
       Dicom 14.2.1
       Difference Clouds 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Diffuse Glow 14.2.1
       Displace 14.2.1
       Dry Brush 14.2.1
       Eazel Acquire 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Embed Watermark 4.0
       Entropy 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Extrude 14.2.1
       FastCore Routines 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Fibers 14.2.1
       Film Grain 14.2.1
       Filter Gallery 14.2.1
       Flash 3D 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Fresco 14.2.1
       Glass 14.2.1
       Glowing Edges 14.2.1
       Google Earth 4 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Grain 14.2.1
       Graphic Pen 14.2.1
       Halftone Pattern 14.2.1
       HDRMergeUI 14.2.1
       IFF Format 14.2.1
       Ink Outlines 14.2.1
       JPEG 2000 14.2.1
       Kurtosis 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Lens Blur 14.2.1
       Lens Correction 14.2.1
       Lens Flare 14.2.1
       Liquify 14.2.1
       Matlab Operation 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Maximum 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Mean 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Measurement Core 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Median 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Mezzotint 14.2.1
       Minimum 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       MMXCore Routines 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Mosaic Tiles 14.2.1
       Multiprocessor Support 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Neon Glow 14.2.1
       Note Paper 14.2.1
       NTSC Colors 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Ocean Ripple 14.2.1
       Oil Paint 14.2.1
       OpenEXR 14.2.1
       Paint Daubs 14.2.1
       Palette Knife 14.2.1
       Patchwork 14.2.1
       Paths to Illustrator 14.2.1
       PCX 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Photocopy 14.2.1
       Photoshop 3D Engine 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Photoshop Touch 14.0
       Picture Package Filter 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Pinch 14.2.1
       Pixar 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Plaster 14.2.1
       Plastic Wrap 14.2.1
       PNG 14.2.1
       Pointillize 14.2.1
       Polar Coordinates 14.2.1
       Portable Bit Map 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Poster Edges 14.2.1
       Radial Blur 14.2.1
       Radiance 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Range 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Read Watermark 4.0
       Reticulation 14.2.1
       Ripple 14.2.1
       Rough Pastels 14.2.1
       Save for Web 14.2.1
       ScriptingSupport 14.2.1
       Shake Reduction 14.2.1
       Shear 14.2.1
       Skewness 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Smart Blur 14.2.1
       Smudge Stick 14.2.1
       Solarize 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Spatter 14.2.1
       Spherize 14.2.1
       Sponge 14.2.1
       Sprayed Strokes 14.2.1
       Stained Glass 14.2.1
       Stamp 14.2.1
       Standard Deviation 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       STL 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Sumi-e 14.2.1
       Summation 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Targa 14.2.1
       Texturizer 14.2.1
       Tiles 14.2.1
       Torn Edges 14.2.1
       Twirl 14.2.1
       Underpainting 14.2.1
       Vanishing Point 14.2.1
       Variance 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Variations 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Water Paper 14.2.1
       Watercolor 14.2.1
       Wave 14.2.1
       Wavefront|OBJ 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       WIA Support 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       Wind 14.2.1
       Wireless Bitmap 14.2.1 (14.2.1 x001)
       ZigZag 14.2.1
    Optional and third party plug-ins:
       Alien Skin Blow Up 3 3.0.0
       Blow Up 3.0.0
       Topaz Adjust 5 10.0
       Topaz BW Effects 2 10.0
       Topaz Clarity 10.0
       Topaz Clean 3 10.0
       Topaz DeJpeg 4 10.0
       Topaz DeNoise 5 10.0
       Topaz Detail 3 10.0
       Topaz InFocus 10.0
       Topaz Lens Effects 10.0
       Topaz photoFXlab 10.0
       Topaz ReMask 3 10.0
       Topaz Simplify 4 10.0
       Topaz Star Effects 10.0
       TopazRemaskAutomate NO VERSION
    Plug-ins that failed to load: NONE
    Flash:
       Gallery Wrapper
       Mini Bridge
       Adobe Exchange
       Kuler
    Installed TWAIN devices: NONE

  • 64 Bit Java is slower than 32 Bit.

    I was running a Linux 64 JDK 1.5 JVM, and doing large software builds.
    The ant builds, which would involve some file operations and come javac compiling took about 6:30 to complete. After changing my JVM to the 32 bit version they completed in 4:15.
    Is the 64 bit Java support really so bad?

    That wasn't the case here tho', no EXS instances at all in this project.
    I tried clearing some caches and that seemd tp make it worse, so that when opening in 64bit, Logic would hang and say: Searching for Audio Unit plug-ins (Apple: AUNet Receive). Then eventually it would load.
    But none of this would happen in 32bit mode, just a normal load, very fast.
    So I reinstalled Logic update 9.1.7 and that seemed to sort it out, at least I'm back to where Logic loads slowly in 64bit mode, without any "Searching for ..." messages.
    Any more guidance appreciated.

  • HD on slower-than-2.0GHZ Mac

    Apple says you need a 2.0 GHZ Core Duo Mac to play HD video. I have 2 Macs, one that has a 2.2GHZ Core Duo (a MacBook) and one that is "only" 1.66GHZ Core Duo (an older Mini). I have been playing HD TV shows and movies purchased from the iTunes store on the Mini, which is hooked up to a large-screen LCD TV) and don't seem to be having any problems. According to Activity Monitor, I am only using about 60% or 70% of the processor's capacity.
    Am I missing anything here? Is there some problem I might have? Why does Apple say you need 2.0GHZ--just being cautious?

    If it works then do it. There's only a few ways I can think of damaging a computer by simply running above spec. software. If a computer has to work so hard it overheats (more a sign of bad cooling than overworking). If a computer is having to revert to using the hard drive for memory, putting more wear and tear on the drive.
    As the other poster observed, the 2GHz bar is set to play it safe. Maybe if you were running lots of other programs at the same time as playing movies you might notice decreased performance.

  • 64 bits work slower then 64 bits  - Q1

    Hi,
    This very much related to question http://forum.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=29241&tstart=0
    Noticed certain functions use up longer time for execution when its compiled as 64-bit compared to the same function in 32-bit.
    Here is a stripped down example:
    "perf.c" 17 lines, 184 characters
         1  #include <stdio.h>
         2
         3  int a(void) {
         4   int z=0;
         5   if (z == 0) z++;
         6  }
         7
         8  int main(void) {
         9   int i, j, z=0;
        10
        11   for (i = 0; i < 50000; i++)
        12    for (j = 0; j < 10000; j++)
        13     a();
        14
        15   return 0;
        16  }
        17Compiled it as follow:
    64-bit
    cc -xarch=v9 perf.c -o perf.6432-bit
    cc perf.c -o perf.32Machine:
    SunOS MachineA Generic_108528-24 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10 (UltraSparc IIi 440 MHz)
    Compiler:
    Forte[tm] Developer 7: C Compiler
    Timing it, consistently 64-bit slower than 32-bit:
    $ timex perf.64
    real       27.73
    user       12.45
    sys         0.01
    $ timex perf.32
    real       20.58
    user        9.18
    sys         0.00The same result could be observed in other few machines I have tried:
    1. SunOS MachineB Generic_108528-15 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10 (IIi 360 MHz)
    2. SunOS MachineC 5.9 Generic_118558-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60 (II 450 MHz)
    However, 64-bits same speed/faster in some machines:
    3. SunOS MachineD 5.9 Generic_117171-02 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R (III+ 1200 MHz)
    $ timex perf.64
    real        1.34
    user        1.33
    sys         0.01
    $ timex perf.32
    real        1.34
    user        1.34
    sys         0.004. SunOS MachineE 5.10 Generic_118822-11 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-280R (1200 MHz)
    $ timex perf.64
    real        6.94
    user        6.72
    sys         0.05
    $ timex perf.32
    real        7.12
    user        6.73
    sys         0.08However, I tweak the code as following:
    1) If line 4 is changed to/from:
         4   int z=0;
         5   if (z == 0) z++;and compared to
         4   long z=0;
         5   if (z == 0) z++;long has some improvement (however still slower than 32-bit (in MachineA, MachineB and MachineC) )
    2) If compiled with Optimization on still slower than non-optimised 32-bit.
    $ cc -O  -xarch=v9 perf.c -o perf.64
    $ timex perf.64
    real       24.48
    user       10.89
    sys         0.02
    $ timex perf.32
    real       21.48
    user        9.23
    sys         0.013) Moving statement line 5 to line 13 (without the function) - this gives the same timing (64b ~= 32b)!
    Question that I have based on these are:
    1) How could we explain this above scenario? does this related to stack, variables?
    2) What makes it faster in MachineD and MachineE? Looking at this, its seems to be possible to make 64-bit as same performance as 32-bit. So is this something to do with software or hardware? which component?
    Thanks in advance for those who could shed some light on this.

    Peter, Thank you for the machine instruction level - detailed answer.
    Yup, I agree stripping down a function probably not a best way to benchmark it, the reason we have done so is because our application (just would like to add - which has intensive use of IO) become slower in certain modules when moved to 64 bits. I have used gprof for detailed function level timing, based on the data it shows self-execution time for certain functions has increased dramatically. However when I stripped down those functions - with dummy function calls, and loop it as many time - I was not able to see the actual reported difference anymore - the stripped down program show lower difference. As you described caching may have played a role here.
    As for the machine I have used, yes - it was not in idle however since both 32-bit and 64-bit were run at the same - assumption made was 1) both were tested on server with same amount of load - therefore this factor could be eliminated. 2) The code has no/minimal system calls - therefore server load may not effect the "user time".
    As for performance analyser, yup will try to get this up.
    Now getting abit specific to our issue - at the moment we are looking if there is any possible fix/workaround with minimal impact to our application . Therefore, we try not to:
    1) Move to newer version of compiler (we planning to do this eventually and gradually).
    2) Change optimization level (currently compiled as -O). (I believe -fast could lead to addtional memory usage)
    Besides the fact that 64-bit app uses twice the size of pointers that may effect amount of data in cache and thus effect the performance.
    From your reply I also leaned that :
    1) Compiler Forte 7 - The generated instruction could have some overheads/(redundant perhaps?) instructions =~ which could cause 2-3 extra CPU cycles per funtion/section (in any specific case, could this be true for codes that compiled with -O on as well?).
    2) Processor/HW
    Is there any other possible factors:
    1) Is there any tunable kernel parameters for 64-bits app performance that may be used as workaround?
    2) Dynamic libraries (e.g libc)? Is there any patches known to improve performance.
    Libraries used in our application using is as follow:
            libm.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/64/libm.so.1
            libnsl.so.1 =>   /usr/lib/64/libnsl.so.1
            libsocket.so.1 =>        /usr/lib/64/libsocket.so.1
            librt.so.1 =>    /usr/lib/64/librt.so.1
            libc.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/64/libc.so.1
            libdl.so.1 =>    /usr/lib/64/libdl.so.1
            libmp.so.2 =>    /usr/lib/64/libmp.so.2
            libaio.so.1 =>   /usr/lib/64/libaio.so.1
            /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-5_10/lib/sparcv9/libc_psr.so.1I am glad to provide more data if needed.
    Thanks.

  • Mac OS internet 5x slower than Windows 7 on BootCamp

    Alright, here is my problem...
    My one and only computer is a mid 2010 iMac... I recently moved to a new place. Prior to me moving I was stuck with an awful 3Mbps download speed. (You can tell how much I hated it by looking at my username) Now that I moved, I am able to get much faster internet. So, I got a plan that offers up to 50Mbps download speeds (Xfinity Blast cable internet). I didn't want to rent my ISP's modem/router, so I purchased my own. I got a Motorola sbg6580. As soon as I got everything hooked up, it seemed perfect. I used speedtest.net to see what I was getting. I first tested on Windows 7. To my surprise, I was getting around 70Mbps. I then restarted my iMac into the Mac OS to do some speed tests. On the Mac OS, I was getting around 50-60Mbps. A bit slower than Windows 7, but still very good. The next day I decided to do a "real world" test. I downloaded a 1 Gigabyte file just to see how fast it was. Now, if I was getting 50Mbps the file should have taken just under 3 minutes to download. Instead, it took around 7 minutes. I figured it was maybe just the website I was downloading from. (the file I was downloading was the Cry Enginge SDK - http://www.crydev.net/ ) I did some research and discovered the website testmy.net - I am not sure if this is completely reliable or not, but every test I do on testmy.net I get around 10Mbps. At first I thought it was my ISP ripping me off, then I decided to do a testmy.net test on Windows 7 via BootCamp. (please note that on both Mac OSX and Windows 7 I did multiple tests over the coarse of multiple days) On Windows, I could instantly tell that the test was going much faster. The results for testmy.net on Windows 7 were 50-60Mbps. I did not completely trust the website, so I downloaded the same Cryengine SDK on Windows. It took around 3 minutes, just as it should have. I researched a bunch online trying to find info on this problem. I tried many "solutions" but none of them changed anything. (these include but are not limited to: Tried different DNS servers, Disabled ipv6, disabled sbg6580 firewall, disabled mac osx firewall, tried changing the wireless channel, and reset sbg6580. I came to the conclusion that it was the sbg6580. I thought that maybe an airport express would give me better results. So, today I bought an Airport express. With the sbg6580, I was able to disable the router features so it was just a modem. I was then able to set up the Airport express as my router. It fixed nothing. I am still getting the same results, Windows is still getting anywhere from 50-60Mbps while Mac OSX is getting around 10Mbps. I am out of ideas, if anyone could please help me that would be great. Also, if you need to know anything else please let me know. I may have missed something...
    A quick note:
    At my old house I had my iMac hooked up to a surge protector. For maximum internet performance, my iMac was connected to my router with an ethernet cable. During a bad storm one day, a lightning bolt either hit my house or very close to it. Ever since, my ethernet port has not worked. I have tried multiple eithernet cables as well as multiple routers and networks. I do not have the money for apple to completely replace my logic board. - So anyway, I am unable to test the performace with an eithernet cable.
    Extra information:
    My sbg6580 as well as my Airport extreme are both sitting on the same desk as my iMac, so it is obviously not a signal problem.
    I also own both a iPod touch 5th gen and a iPad 2nd gen. I am getting around 20-30Mbps on both of them. I am not sure what would be a "good speed" on either of these, but I figured that was pretty good for a tablet and ipod.
    The upload speeds on both windows 7 and Mac OSX are around the same 5-10Mbps.
    I am using Google Chrome on both Windows 7 and Mac OSX but, I have also tried Firefox and Safari.

    Please read this whole message before doing anything.
    This procedure is a diagnostic test. It’s unlikely to solve your problem. Don’t be disappointed when you find that nothing has changed after you complete it.
    The purpose of the test is to determine whether the problem is caused by third-party software that loads automatically at startup or login, or by a peripheral device. 
    Disconnect all wired peripherals except those needed for the test, and remove all aftermarket expansion cards. Boot in safe mode and log in to the account with the problem. Note: If FileVault is enabled, or if a firmware password is set, or if the boot volume is a software RAID, you can’t do this. Post for further instructions.
    Safe mode is much slower to boot and run than normal, and some things won’t work at all, including wireless networking on certain Macs. The next normal boot may also be somewhat slow.
    The login screen appears even if you usually log in automatically. You must know your login password in order to log in. If you’ve forgotten the password, you will need to reset it before you begin. Test while in safe mode. Same problem? After testing, reboot as usual (i.e., not in safe mode) and verify that you still have the problem. Post the results of the test.

  • Encounter 64 bits work slower then 64 bits

    The application i have when compiled in 64bits work slower than 32 bits.
    Observed there are some site making the same claim.
    Are there any mitigation can be made ?

    Hi
    There are lots of issues in 32bit vs. 64 bit performance.
    If you need to access a lot of memory (4G and over) then you have no choice, you must use 64bit apps.
    Next, if you are using amd64, then in 64bit code it has more CPU registers available, which can make it significantly faster than 32bit code.
    Counting against 64bit code is the fact that the larger size of longs and pointers means that there can be fewer of them in the caches, so there will be a lower cache hit rate.
    64bit code is able transfer data more quickly (64bit data path), but at the same time needs to transfer more data (64bit pointers and longs). No idea what the balance is for this, plus I suspect that most 32bit CPUs these days already use a 64bit external data path.
    Paul

  • HT1199 My mac book pro is heating in an unusual way and a bit slower. I wonder what's happening.

    I have a mac book pro. Purchased and downloaded the OX Mountain lion. However, it still shows in my app store as not installed. Also, my computer is heating up unsually and is a bit slower. Help needed!

    I have a mac book pro. Purchased and downloaded the OX Mountain lion. However, it still shows in my app store as not installed. Also, my computer is heating up unsually and is a bit slower. Help needed!

  • 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.

  • MacBook getting a bit slow

    Hi,
    I have a 2008 white MacBook. In the beginning it was extremely quick (startup/shutdown/loading of apps) however as time has gone on it has become a bit slower in doing all these tasks.
    I have upgraded the RAM to 4GB (from Crucial) and tbh I didn't find this to have done much even though the reviews/opinions of others suggested it would.
    I now am thinking of upgrading the OS to snow leopard however am worried that this too may disappoint, plus im thinking it may be worth simply waiting for lion to come out in the summer.
    Compared to the what the MacBook came with in the beginning it hasn't got that much installed on it (iWork, TomTom, Skype) so im a bit puzzled as to what could make it slower.
    Anyone got any suggestion as to what I could do before I make any purchases?

    Sounds like plenty of space on the hard drive. A full hard drive can slow down OSX.
    I think more memory can slow down a computer on startup because it takes longer to test it. However, once started things go faster. May be wrong.
    Probably some slow down due to having more files, etc. Computer needs to read and write items to cache and directory. Some run system-only partitions to get around having data files sharing same drive as system.
    Try doing a bit of spring cleaning by starting up in Safe Mode, then restarting.
    [Mac OS X: Starting up in Safe Mode|http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107393]
    [What is Safe Boot, Safe Mode? (Mac OS X)|http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1564]
    [Safe Boot takes longer than normal startup|http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107394]
    [Mac OS X 10.4, 10.5 - Computer shuts down during Safe Boot|http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24054]
    Here's a whole bunch of reading on the speed up topic. Not sure if it is all up to date. In particular, avoid the "maintenance" tools unless you know of a specific issue.
    [Mac OS X speed FAQ|http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html] - general reference on performance in various Mac models
    [Tips to optimize your Mac OS X experience|http://www.giantmike.com/speedX.html]
    [Mac Tune-up: 34 Software Speedups|http://www.macworld.com/article/49489/2006/02/softwarespeed.html]
    [52 Ways to Speed Up OS X|http://www.imafish.co.uk/articles/post/articles/130/52-ways-to-speed-up-os-x>
    [Tuning Mac OS X Performance|http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/performance.html]
    [11 Ways to Optimize Your Mac's Performance|http://lowendmac.com/eubanks/07/0312.html]
    [The Top 7 Free Utilities To Maintain A Mac.|http://mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/thetop_7_free_utilities_to_maintain_amac>
    [Mac OS X: System maintenance|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=607640]
    [Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance|http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html#Anchor-31774]
    [Kappy's Personal Suggestions for OS X Maintenance|http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8230024#8230024 ]
    [a brody's Topic: Myths of required versus not required maintenance for Mac OS X|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1772235]
    [Are the desktops cluttered with files and folders?|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7668937] and [related comment|http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=9168594], and [here|http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=10434647]
    [Problems from insufficient RAM and free hard disk space|http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/lackofram.html] and more details on this [http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=11476663]

  • ITunes will not open and tells me to use the "information" to open in 32 bit rather than 64. but the information pane does not offer that option ...

    I am trying to open my iTune 10.4 on my mac mini which is running OS 10.6.8, and I get the message that I need to use the information pane to open in 32-bit rather than 64. But the information pane does not offer this option. I'm in a vicious circle of opening, getting this message, then having to close. Did this come about after the June update of iTunes? And if so, why haven't they fixed it? And what can I do? You'd think Apple would want be to be able to spend my money in their store ...

    Try following steps and test one at a time:
    1. Restart computer, right mouse click iTunes icon and select "Run As Administrator"
    2. If that does not work, check to see if this file APSDaemon.exe is the problem here.
    Close your iTunes.
    Press Ctrl-Alt-Del key and choose Task Manager. In the "Processes" Tab, select the file APSDaemon.exe and click End Prosses button, then close the task manager window.
    Now open itunes and see if it is working?
    If that works, to prevent having to do the same process everytime you restart Windows, go to. START button, type in
    MSCONFIG
    Hit ENTER
    Click STARTUP Tab, Uncheck "Apple Push", click OK.
    Restart Windows.
    3. If that fails or you don't see ApsDaemon.exe in the Processes, refer to following article to remove SC files:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2363
    4. If that fails, repair or reinstall your Quicktime. START / CONTROL PANEL / PROGRAMS N FEATURES / hightlight QUICKTIME and click REPAIR.

  • [SOLVED] Too slow on 64-bit system

    As I bought a 4g mem (a tot of 6g) I upgrade my arch to 64-bit, and it goes very very slow.
    It takes several minutes (after download completed) to install some small software ( like vim ).
    And top shows pacman used 97% cpu ( i5 M430 2 core 4 threads , a tot of 25%?).
    Then I use vim to open a 100-line c file, it took about 5 seconds ( not only once! ).
    It's much slower than my old 32-bit arch.
    My new 64-bit windows has the same problem while the 32-bit windows goes well.
    Would it be that 64-bit is supported but not well supported by my cpu? Or any solutions?
    I don't know what information should be posted here.
    If I should post any other information here, please tell me.
    Last edited by zero2228 (2012-11-04 15:11:56)

    Try takeing out the new stick of ram... you say a total of 6GB, so I assume you also have a 2GB stick in there.... Then see if Arch is still slow.
    I am like 99.9999999999% sure that the i5 CPU works fine with 64bit.
    NOTE: They Hyper-Threading of the Core-i CPU's is not a linear increase in speed. Like for my:
    >Ivy-Bridge moble i7 - Kernel 3.6.5-1-grsec - Hyper-Threading enabled
    ->/etc/makepkg.conf set to "-j2" (two threads)
    It takes ~32min's to compile the Linux Kernel
    ->/etc/makepkg.conf set to "-j3" (three threads)
    It takes ~27min's to compile the Linux Kernel
    ->/etc/makepkg.conf set to "-j4" (four threads)
    It takes ~22min's to comple the Linux Kernel
    > 100*(1-(22/32))
    [1] 31.25
    So, the Hyper-Threading gives my i7-3520M about 30% more speed. Which is good. I read that the Pentium 4HT only produced 20% more speed.
    Last edited by hunterthomson (2012-11-04 02:05:51)

  • HT4410 how to download win 7 64 bit home premium drivers for mac pro

    Hi,
    I installed the windows 7 64 bit home premium in my mac pro but drivers are not installed. When i am trying to download the drivers through boot camp, it shows "downloading windows software.." and the progress bar never completes. Plz help me hw i can download win7 drivers?

    You should visit the Boot Camp forum rather than posting here in the Macbook Pro forum. There are multiple threads about your issue going on right now. https://discussions.apple.com/community/windows_software/boot_camp

Maybe you are looking for