MS Office: v.X seems much snappier than 2004

just my observation. anyone else?
MBP 2.16 1GB   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

I had V X in my 3-day old MBP, which has gone for repair. I think no difference from PWB 667. I did not try the trial 2004, and will not.
My Adobe CS2 Suite apps seemed to function also better than in the older. However, the native Apple apps do not seem any better than the same ones in my PWB, and some are really slower - maybe it was my MBP unit, but I am not impressed! Three days and no power lights on cords & battery not charging - likely some internal wiring.
For certain web uses, Firefox was suggested by specific site to FTP and was great on PWB, in MBP Firefox was just useless, almost not functioning, actually refused to upload.
My reseller shipped me a week 17 unit, but I just read on another thread that a reader had a #29 unit and was real happy. Where's the logic?
Sorry to get off the subject, but maybe others have solutions or option.

Similar Messages

  • Custom .look grade applied in Premiere seems much darker than in Speedgrade

    I'm just starting to dig into the interaction between Premiere and Speedgrade. Maybe I'm missing something. When I try to apply a Lumetri custom .look file as either an effect or a filter in Premiere, the result is MUCH darker than it appears in Speedgrade. To explore further, I rendered the clip in question via Speedgrade, imported the result to Premiere, and the grade looked as it had in Speedgrade. Applying the .look file via Premiere to the same source clip, the result was once again far too dark.
    Is there some setting that I'm missing someplace? Are other people having the same result?

    I'm not sure if you still have the same problem but I've noticed that certain LUT's that you can find in Speedgrade can help match the two programs and the way they display the image. Also I've realized the "Input Saturation" setting DOES NOT translate well into Premiere.
    Try this:
    1. Take a grade you made and turn the Input Saturation up quite a bit for that specific grade..
    2. Create a separate .Look file with that grade.
    3. Turn the Input Saturation back to default and make a separate .Look with that grade.
    4. Switch between the grades from Step 1 and Step 3 to see if it better matches your Speedgrade image.
    Note: If these still don't match, what matched my two programs almost perfectly was using the DAY4NIGHT - SL - 3527.itx LUT in the Speedgrade options under: Timeline > Setup at the bottom. Use this LUT in conjunction with Steps 1 through 4. Experiment with different LUTs.
    I hope that helps! :-)

  • Sun JVM seems much slower than MS JVM

    Hello, I was wondering which one is preferred. Whenever I use Sun's JVM 1.5.0, it seems to be significantly slower than MS's. Are these two almost equivalent, or is the Sun JVM far better than MS's? Thanks.

    Sun-JVm just starts slower but has a significant better runtime performance...
    Trust me - I have to create a big application that runs on both and MSJVM is definitifly crap - it justs starts slow and needs less memory for small programs...
    btw. msjvm isnt really supported even by mircososft..

  • 9.2.1 all good so far... seems much snappier, faster syncing.

    I installed the latest version 9.2.1 today without any problems and so far my impression is that this update has definitely fixed some bugs for me.
    Navigating through the interface is faster, scrolling through the tracks seems smoother, the artwork loads much quicker... before there always seemed to be a delay before the album cover showed up... , and syncing with my ipod touch gen 2 is a lot quicker. Previously the syncing and backing up would take ages and often stall or crash, now this seems to have been fixed.
    So..good one Apple, thanks.

    I installed the latest version 9.2.1 today without any problems and so far my impression is that this update has definitely fixed some bugs for me.
    Navigating through the interface is faster, scrolling through the tracks seems smoother, the artwork loads much quicker... before there always seemed to be a delay before the album cover showed up... , and syncing with my ipod touch gen 2 is a lot quicker. Previously the syncing and backing up would take ages and often stall or crash, now this seems to have been fixed.
    So..good one Apple, thanks.

  • Images seem to print much darker than they appear on screen?

    I have been using iPhoto to create cards and then I later save them as .pdf files so I can take them to another mac connected to an Epson 1400 printer and print them. Prior to making the cards in iPhoto, I do basic levels and auto color adjustments in Photoshop. Some of the cards that I am printing seem to be so much darker than the way they appear on screen. I understand that there is a differene between what is presented on a display and the way something may print, but the difference is so drastic. Is this something to do with iPhoto?
    Thanks.

    rick.pearl
    Because every maker of computer, software and printer have a different definition of the various colors Apple and others got together to agree definitions that would work together. So if you assign a color space to an image - sRGB, say - then any software or hardware that respect the color space will be using the same meaning for 'green' or 'blue'.
    In iPhoto Preferences -> Advanced, check the box for Embed Color Sync Profile, and this will embed a profile on every pic you add from now on.
    As to the one's already in, Old Toad has kindly created an Automator action that will add an sRGB profile to pics already in iPhoto. You can downlaod it from here.
    http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=toad.hall&tem platefn=FileSharing7.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.7.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consume r&cty=US&lang=en#
    Regards
    TD
    as to the points: most everything I do is pointless

  • HT5521 I have a lightning to usb cable which is 2m in length.  Is there any known issues with trying to recharge an iPad 4 with this longer length.  It seems to me it is taking much longer than a 1m cord to recharge.

    I have a lightning to usb cable which is 2m in length.  Is there any known issues with trying to recharge an iPad 4 with this longer length?  It seems to me it is taking much longer than a 1m cord to recharge.

    Axel,
    I'm afraid a new SSD won't be different from your bad USB stick. I had similar issues over USB with both a (no-brand) stick and TWO 64gb Kingston SSDNow's (running Kubuntu 12.04 with Kernel 3.11, ia_64): it all runs exceptionally well (wanna know how it feels like booting in 5 sec?) for a few days - then suddenly you find yourself facing that dreaded (initramfs) prompt. You ask yourself: why? Did I upgrade grub lately? Did I upgrade the Kernel? I don't recall so. Ok, let's fix this... insert favorite live cd, boot, fsck...what???? THOUSANDS of errors??? Hundreds of files and directories corrupted, and the system is unusable - Reinstall everything from scratch onto another drive.
    Rinse and repeat: did this 3 times. Then I found this analysis:
    http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html
    I also suspect USB power interrupts more abruptly than SATA power, at shutdown - basically aggravating any power interruption damages. So now I'm going to:
    - buy an Intel S3500!
    - add commit=1 to my mount options in /etc/fstab
    - edit shutdown procedure to add a 5-10 sec pause after unmounting drives.
    Just my two cents.
    Andrea
    Last edited by andreius (2013-12-29 16:51:04)

  • 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.

  • Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?

    I was under the impression that original raw files were the biggest possible. I appear to be very wrong. Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?
    I'm beginning to think that saving them as psd is a bad idea.
    Yes, though I've heard all the arguments of keepng the original raw files (For ex. Did you throw away the negatives when you were using film) I se eno purpose in keeping them. Once I've made the initial adjustments--cropping, color correction etc. I don't feel a need to ever go back and never do. Most of my work is done in Photoshop and I like it that way--but suddenly finding myself with such huge files doesn't appeal to me at all--and other formats like tif...well never mind for now.

    Good point made c.pfaffenbichler however, my thinking is this--there is time spent on the raw file and then there is much more time spent on (usually a psd) the file once in Photoshop. For me to then go back to the orignal raw file, after having worked on it on PS would mean getting rid of all the work (larger amount of work, time wise and artistic wise) done on PS which seems pointless. Although the psd file does show your layers and stuff it only shows the end results of that layer. It does not show from where to where you pointed your brush, from what point to what point you changed the color or part of an image etc. etc.Anyhow I understand why most people keep their raw files, but this is the main reason why I do not. It would mean hours of work on an image you already worked on (and usually were satisfied with) to perhaps make some minor alteration. Also please note that though I was noce a pro photog, no I do it mostly for fun. Getting the exact red in my Coca Cola can has never been of importance. On the other hand, if there were a way of working on a raw file within Photoshop and keep it (save it as) a raw file equivalent, then I would absolutely do so.

  • Why is the signal at my home so much weaker than when I moved here in February 2013?  I only get one or two bars and very poor data service if any at all.

    Why is the signal at my home so much weaker than it was when I moved here in February 2013?  I get only one or two bars and very poor data service if any at all.  Calling to ask the question results in a vortex of questions that have little to do with the problem and no  resolution or answer.

    I have a Droid Ultra phone.  The signal reduction seems to only be in the general area of my home.  If I go downtown, the signal improves to what it once was at home.  Everything at my home is as it was when the signal was good, including cable TV service.  There has been no new construction in the area that I know of.
    Thanks for trying to resolve the issue.  Just this morning while trying to view web pages, I found that I could not load any.
    Ron

  • Track levels suddenly much higher than normal. ?!?!?

    Need some help friends... I have a problem that I can't seem to fix;
    When I boot up an existing song or project, the levels shown on most of my tracks are peaking but the sound isn't clipping. The faders were all well below zero normally but for some reason now the levels are much higher and in the red. Why? The whole song sounds the same as far as I can tell but the levels shown on the faders are all much, much higher! The only way to reduce them is to remove the compression and other plugins from the track but I need a way to just restore the original levels...
    Many thanks in advance for any suggestions,
    If you need any info - please ask - i really want to sort this out asap.
    Acoma

    So how come BeeJay gets a "Helpful" and I do not when I am the one who correctly diagnosed the problem? Sheesh!
    That's 'cos I'm much prettier than you!
    Er, no, wait... the other thing...
    (In any case, when I saw the original question, I left it for you to answer as you are the chief PFM-advocate around here... )

  • ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

    A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
    Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing. 

    It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
    Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
        Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
        created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
    Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
    1.  ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
    2.  Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
    -Noel
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
         Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

  • Anyone else? CS4 running much slower than CS3?

    I just upgraded to CS4 from CS3. All of the applications are running much, much slower than CS3, particularly InDesign. My computer is literally fresh out of the box; specs below. Software and patches up to date. Thinking of uninstalling CS4 and reverting back to CS3. Any suggestions/feedback?
    MacBook Pro 15"
    2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
    4GB memory
    320GB 5400-rpm hard drive
    NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics processor with 256MB
    1440 by 900 pixels
    Snow Leopard OX
    Purchased CS4 Master Collection. Other software installed includes iLife, iWork, Office for Mac.

    I'm not using In Design yet, but for Photoshop and Acrobat my sense is that they are fast or faster than CS3, and Snow Leopard has reduced the launch time for all my apps compared with Leopard.
    Yes there are issues with running Adobe apps with Snow Leopard, but some of them are the same issues when running CS3 apps with Leopard--and in any event, these are, I believe, all crashing bugs, not things that slow down responsiveness. I personally have had only a few problems with Design Std CS4 apps + Snow Leopard.

  • Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

    Hey boys and girls,
    I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
    So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
    The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
    OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
    Thanks for any help in advance.
    Ugli
    PB Bronze   Mac OS X (10.3.9)  

    ugli:
    Welcome to Apple Discussions.
    You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
    There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
    Good luck in your quest.
    cornelius
    PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

  • When I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

    when I save a photo as a jpeg in PE 13 the file size is much smaller than with PE 12. Why?

    Are the image all the same size the % files open into a document seems to vary with the number of pixels the image being opened has.  Check the Image size.

  • I can hardly believe my old school Palm Pre was much friendlier than the IPhone.  I have had it for more than six months and still cannot sync my Outlook calendars and contacts.  I get a message like, "no calendar application  identified."    help!

    My old school palm pre was much friendlier than the IPHONE 3G.  I was able to sync my outlook calendars and contacts via wi-fi effortlessly.  I tunes did sync once or twice in the six months that I have had it, but more often it acts like it is syncing and ultimately delivers a message like "no calendar application is supported".  Why the back and forth.  Very frustrating after literally hours of trying to sync my phone with my Outlook calendar and contacts.  HELP!!!!

    What version of MS Office do you have installed? Have you tried re-installing office over top of itself? It may not be properly registered with the OS.

Maybe you are looking for