PPCS4 definitely better in 64 bit O.S.

Hi guys,
probably it will sound as the "hot water discover" but I want all the members know that Premiere Pro runs wonderfully with Win7 64 bit and 8 Gb RAM.
Ram run, in 32bit, around 1,9 Gb but now it's everytime close to 4: it means that 32bit O.S. brakes a bit the application.
Several effects that crashed PP just when I applied (NeatVideo "in primis"), now run without problems.
I had to say also I use mainly HD Sony videocam .MTS files.
What do I say: I'm in heaven and I wish many of you will do the same just if you could.
Processing times half longer.
No fear if you'll see the application put in Program files x86 (32 bit) and not in Program Files x 64.
Update shouldn't be a big trouble 'cause Vista and 7 are supplied with 32 and 64 bit operating system.
I thank a lot Huntrex for having given me the last push to re-format everything and pass to 64bit.
Hope this will help.
Giorgio

Hi Clowg,
Sorry to hear that you are having trouble.  Unfortunately, I don't believe the folks here on this forum will be able to help you with your issue.  Have you tried posting on the Flash Player forum?
http://forums.adobe.com/community/webplayers/flash_player
Regards,
Fang

Similar Messages

  • CUCM + VMware better on 64-bit Windows XP or Windows 7?

    HI there.
    I did a cursory search for this and didn't find much. I have a feeling it may have been discussed so apologies if this is a duplicate post.
    I'm prepping for the CCIE lab and I've always ran my CUCM 7x on my 64-bit Windows XP so I can install 16gb ram.
    I recently upgraded a new desktop that has Windows 7 on it.
    I'm wondering if anyone knows whether CUCM on VMware runs any better on XP or 7 as long as RAM and CPU are the same?
    Is there are more efficient way that VMware works?
    I'm currently using VMware Workstation 6.5.0  (I have a feeling someone is going to suggest ESX)
    Finally, to settle an age-old debate amongst my Cisco friends, when running VMware, is it best to choose ONE or TWO processors?
    I've heard many pple say many things without really a satisfactory answer.
    TIA!

    Thanks Chris,
    I agree with you RAM memory is essentially the biggest bottleneck in VMware.
    However, I discussed this with a few folks and one of them said the following:
    "Use 2003 Server Enterprise, 32-bit. It's faster than 64-bit."
    I was surprised by this comment. I think he also said something that "VMware is actually optimized for 32-bit, not 64"
    I'm not sure how true that is. Perhaps it was true 3-4 years ago.
    So this goes back to my other question, which version of VMware is optimized for 64-bit? And, is it necessarily faster to run CUCM on 64-bit computer or 32-bit.
    The RAM question has been resolved. Now it's just an issue of optimizing VMware with the OS.

  • Lightroom 4 Beta, Windows 64 bit

    Sorry if this is not the proper channel, but I could not find anywhere else to post a problem with Lightroom 4 beta.
    Just installed it.  Ran for about and hour.  Stopped responding in the Print Module.  Windows shut it down.  Will no longer run.  Everytime I launch LR 4, Windows says it stopped responding.
    Windows7, 64 bit.  8GB main memory.  720GB hard drive mostly empty.  NVidea GT220 HD graphics with 1GB memory. 

    Lr 4 beta forum is at http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom4?view=discussions

  • Trouble Installing PPCS4 to Vista 32 bit

    I realized that PPCS5 requiers a 64 bit operating system, and I have a 32 bit operating system, so I installed the free 30 day trial version of PPCS4 onto my Vista 32 bit operating system.
    I extracted the files after I downloaded them I extracted from .zip using WinRar to I extracted them to the directory "C:/Downloads/".
    Then I extracted  the .rar that contains the auto installer using WinRar to extract to the directory "C:/Downloads/Adobe Premier Pro CS4/".
    Then I ran the auto installer.  It says it is called "Setup.exe"
    The auto installer said:
    "Premier Pro CS4 and After Effects CS4, 32 bit support for CS5 installer: initializing
    Checking system profile".
    Then a few minutes later the auto installer said:
    "Premier Pro CS4 and After Effects CS4, 32 bit support for CS5 - setup error
    Setup Error
    Setup has encountered an error and can not continue.  Contact Adobe Customer Support for assistance."
    This is the download link that I used:
    http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=5291&fileID=4921&fb_source=messa ge
    Is this not a full installer and requieres the CS5 installer too?  But the CS5 installer for PPCS4 is for 64 bit operating systems and I have a 32 bit operating system?
    What do I do?

    [Posts deleted until OP system issues resolved]

  • Does AppleTV(v2) output 24-bit audio through TOSLINK port?

    I have some high-definition audio files (24-bit/44.1KHz and 24/96) in Apple Lossless format. I also have what I thought was a simple question: Does the AppleTV support bit-perfect playback of such files? In other words, will the AppleTV stream them without downsampling them? Posts on other forums suggest that the AppleTV downsamples everything to 16/48 (which would be absurd on Apple's part, as every other link in the audio chain, including iTunes, Mac, DAC, etc fully supports 24/96). Can anyone confirm either way? The technical specs are conspicuously silent on this issue...

    Patrick Dubby wrote:
    Aaaargh, I was thinking of getting one of these as a more convenient way of getting 24/96 sound out of my macbook than a long TOSLINK cable to my amplifier.
    Looks like another wasted opportunity.
    Yep
    What I don't understand is that according to other reports, digital audio from a DVD is passed through no problems. Why would a 5.1 digital signal be untouched, but a similar signal from iTunes be screwed up?
    Personally I think they don't see beyond the iTunes store purchase/rental model.
    As you know you can't even buy true CD quality audio from iTunes let alone anything better.
    When we're able to download/buy 4GB HD movies, I see no practical reason why we couldn't have CD quality or better encoded as Apple Lossless audio.
    There must be some sort of workaround?
    No. I ended up buying a Mac Mini.
    The majority of other media boxes I looked at previously also were limited and even though some supported FLAC they couldn't output 24/48 ot 24/96.
    I'm sure some of them must do it now, but it's a shame AppleTV can't - I doubt it's a hardware related issue, simply one of support.
    And why, in 2011, is 24/96 still considered 'audiophile'? After 30 years of 16/44.1 you'd think we would have moved on somewhat to a new standard.
    Truth being most people don't care. MP3/portable players have killed many people's appreciation of what good quality audio sounds like. I use these devices all the time on the go, but for home listening I do not want lossy compressed audio to play on the hi-fi, and in this day and age we should be able to ditch the silver discs easily.
    AC

  • Lots of 16 bit Tiffs & no idea how to delete

    Hi,
    I'm really new to photo editing & Mac's, but by following various sources of advice from the net, I think I've created myself a big problem - please advise!
    I use Aperture 2.0 for my library & most of my editing of Raw files, but to interpolate these images, I "Edit With" Photoshop CS3. I have the default Edit With set to 16 Bit Tiff, which instantly creates a big TIFF file along with the Raw Master. I then interpolate in Photoshop & reimport an 8 Bit JPEG back into Aperture [I'm sure this is a really poor workflow, but I'm struggling with all this techy side to Photography & I know no-one with a Mac).
    The problem, as I'm sure you can guess, is that I have lots (& lots) of unnecessary TIFF files in Aperture that I can't delete without deleting the RAW too.
    I use CS3 for interpolation because this is a system that works for my needs (plus I know Photoshop from my pc past-life).
    Can you advise of a better workflow that can get 16 Bit Tiffs from Aperture into Photoshop that allows me to delete it whilst keeping the RAW master? Any suggestions for a better workflow really, really appreciated.
    Cheers!

    BigDwarf wrote:
    Hi,
    I'm really new to photo editing & Mac's, but by following various sources of advice from the net, I think I've created myself a big problem - please advise!
    Many people believe there are too much info - both correct and incorrect - out there. Filtering what you need can be difficult at times, especially if one is learning new material.
    I use Aperture 2.0 for my library & most of my editing of Raw files, but to interpolate these images, I "Edit With" Photoshop CS3. I have the default Edit With set to 16 Bit Tiff, which instantly creates a big TIFF file along with the Raw Master. I then interpolate in Photoshop & reimport an 8 Bit JPEG back into Aperture [I'm sure this is a really poor workflow, but I'm struggling with all this techy side to Photography & I know no-one with a Mac).
    Not sure why you do this. The default external editor is set to PS, and you are creating 16bit tif files - just fine. The odd thing is what you do after your edit in PS. When you say interpolate, I'm guessing that you are resizing the image? Going from 16bit to 8bit is not interpolation. Rather, it is data reduction in the file. By definition, jpeg is 8bit so I understand why you want to convert 16bit tif into 8 bit.
    If you simply save your edit without doing save as, then the edited tif will go back to Aperture as tif file. You can export jpeg from Aperture to suit your needs.
    Two different approaches exist to do what you want to do. Since you ultimately end up in jpeg, you can simply export jpeg from Aperture and open the file using PS, do your thing and save, then import jpeg into Ap and stack with raw. Sounds close to what you are doing now.
    A different approach is to set your externally edited file preference to 8bit tif and use PS as an external editor and do your edits there (do not convert to jpeg and use save as), and simply save - which will bring you back to Ap environment. Images will already be stacked and all you have to do is export the edited 8 bit tif file as jpeg. Files will be stacked an need not worry where the file is.
    The problem, as I'm sure you can guess, is that I have lots (& lots) of unnecessary TIFF files in Aperture that I can't delete without deleting the RAW too.
    Depends. If you use referenced master files, then the newly created tif file will be saved in the same location is the master file is located. In which case, if you have no need for it, you can simply delete it from Ap and will get rid of the tif file also (as long as you unstack and check the box that say move the file to trash). Raw original will still be in Ap database as well as in your referenced folder.
    If you use managed masters, then bit more complicated but using the same method should work. You can see how the files are kept within Ap Lib by showing content and dig your way into the folder structure, if you're willing.
    I was going to suggest you can simply just delete the tif files, if referenced, but it would leave broken links in Ap, so bad practice...
    I use CS3 for interpolation because this is a system that works for my needs (plus I know Photoshop from my pc past-life).
    Can you advise of a better workflow that can get 16 Bit Tiffs from Aperture into Photoshop that allows me to delete it whilst keeping the RAW master? Any suggestions for a better workflow really, really appreciated.
    You have constrained the problem by specifying 16bit tif and delete, as your current workflow dictates. Try thinking about the workflow from the perspective of what you'd like to get done. Not necessarily how.
    If the objective is to have high quality jpeg from your raw and keep your raw files and jpeg related, then tif is just a intermediary file. Recall that jpeg is 8 bit by definition and the reason people don't like to edit using jpeg is because of truncation issue with compression, everytime you do something with jpeg. Tif does not compress so there is no loss issue with tif.
    If you go from Aperture handled raw to tif (8bit), then edit using PS and save, you have made 1 translation from raw definition (12 or 14 bit in most cases) to 8 bit tif. Editing and saving tif will not degrade your image (there is a loss of IQ, if you up scale resolution, as data needs to be interpolated to fill in the missing data). Once back in Ap, saving as jpeg is simply format change.
    If your objective is to enlarge the image beyond the raw size, then use 16 bit tif and interpolate to upscale in PS. That said, unless you have a small raw file (4~6mp) and are printing large images (say beyond 12x18), there really is no need to do so. Upscaling becomes quite noticeable beyond 25% past the original size, even using 16 bit data set.
    This long winded response is really the short version Others will have different opinion so keep in mind that this is yet just another info on the web..
    Good luck,
    Cheers

  • Windows Vista - 32-bit or 64-bit

    Hi all,
    I'm building a new machine and I'll be installing everything from scratch. LR is pretty much the only heavy-weight program I use and the main reason for getting a new machine.
    I'm wondering if LR would work better in 32-bit or 64-bit Vista? I know the 64-bit version would have higher memory limits available but in terms of computational power would there be a difference. I'd think not but I'd don't know that for a fact.
    Thanks,
    Nick

    Nick,
    Over the past 6 months I went from XP32-bit to Vista 64-bit, same machine with a fresh install.  I had the xp "switch" turned on to allow around 3.2GB memory of the 4GB installed.  The speed increase going to Vista 64 was close to double in most of the LR functions.  It is ABSOLUTELY worth migrating to 64-bit.
    In the end though, my single core, hyperthreaded processor still would not allow me to use the adjustment brush since it basically goes to 100% utilization and stays there for 10 seconds for each small stroke and created streaks across the page when moving to turn the brush off.  I basically did not use it at all.  Thus, when I built my new machine a couple of weeks ago I decided to try Windows7.  Love it for LR.
    So ... in my opinion you definitely want to go to 64-bit and Windows7.  The Windows7 has all the feel of Vista64 with (in my case) none of the conflicts, etc.  Four cores and 8GB of memory would also be my suggested minimum.
    Hope this helps.
    Jeff

  • Final Cut Pro X is beta software

    It's been out a week or so and I've been able to spend some time with the software. Without mentioning the missing features that are well reported elsewhere, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Final Cut Pro X is pretty unusable. I've done a fair bit of beta testing in my time and in my opinion the software has a very definite beta feel to it.
    Crashes are disconcertingly regular, some features plain do not work (have you tried importing iMovie events, for example?), and there are frequent application slowdowns that suggest memory leaks. I really want this software to be good, I really do. But as is stands the software, in my opinion, is incapable of performing the function for which it was written. You have to wonder why Apple released this, why they did not delay the release until the software was considerably more polished? You have to wonder why the development team must have ignored their own beta testers' concerns.
    Maybe in a year's time we'll all look back at this and laugh. But as it stands Apple have a monumental task ahead of them if they are to repair the damage caused by this unprecedented premature release.

    Have been using FCPx since about 2 hours after its first release and despite some head scratching I've not had a single crash... just imported an iMovie project from my SO and its fine!
    Horses for courses!

  • The plan doesn't use the index but the cost of INDEX FULL SCAN looks better

    Hi,
    Well, I'm sure I miss the boat... and if the question is pretty tricky, the answer is probably :"You're stupid Greg!". Well anyway, you'll probably be interested in trying to answer it as I've spent some times on it without any result ! I use Oracle XE on Windows...
    1) Below is my query and its plan. You'll find the full schema generation script at the end of this email. Look at the cost (468) of the plan and the cost of the same query when you force the use of the index (116). Why is this ?
    select count(distinct col5)
      2    from demo
      3      where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4        and col2=col1
      5        and col3=col1
      6        and col4=col1;
    Plan d'execution
    Plan hash value: 2072716547
    | Id  | Operation          | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT   |      |     1 |   116 |   468   (2)| 00:00:06 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY     |      |     1 |   116 |            |          |
    |*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| DEMO |     1 |   116 |   468   (2)| 00:00:06 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       2 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=50000 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)2) When I force the use of an index (with a Hint), You'll see the cost of the plan is 116 which is definitly better than the TABLE ACCESS FULL (468) :
    SQL> l
      1  select /*+ index(demo demo_idx)*/ count(distinct col5)
      2    from demo
      3      where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4        and col2=col1
      5        and col3=col1
      6*       and col4=col1
    SQL> /
    Plan d'execution
    Plan hash value: 189561699
    | Id  | Operation                    | Name     | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |          |     1 |   116 |   437   (2)| 00:00:06 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY               |          |     1 |   116 |            |          |
    |   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DEMO     |     1 |   116 |   437   (2)| 00:00:06 |
    |*  3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN           | DEMO_IDX |     1 |       |   436   (2)| 00:00:06 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       3 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=50000 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)3) My question is why is plan1 used while plan2 should be considered better by the optimizer regarding the cost (to make the case even more complex, plan1 is actually more efficient but this is out of the scope of my question. I know that and I know why !).
    You'll find a script to generate the structures and data below. I can send you the 10053 traces if you what to go furthermore. Take care the index is a REVERSE index (Don't know if query rewrite should be enabled in order to take advantage of this type of index but it is set to "true" (and "trusted") :
    drop table demo;
    create table demo (col1 number not null,
        col2 number,
        col3 number,
        col4 number,
        col5 varchar2(500));
    begin
      for i in 1..100000 loop
        insert into demo values (i,i,i,i,'This column is used to raise the High Water Mark and '||
                                 ' the cost of an TABLE ACCESS FULL operation');
      end loop;
    end;
    commit;
    create index demo_idx on demo(col1,col2,col3,col4) reverse;
    exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(USER, 'DEMO', cascade=>true, -
      method_opt=>'FOR ALL COLUMNS SIZE 254', no_invalidate=>false) Any comments are welcome ! Best Regards,
    Gregory
    Message was edited by:
    arkzoyd... I've added the "pre" tags

    I suspect this has something to do with db_file_multiblock_read_count
    After running provided creation statements by you I got following results:
    SQL> show parameter multiblock
    NAME                                 TYPE        VALUE
    db_file_multiblock_read_count        integer     16
    SQL> set autotrace on
    SQL> select count(distinct col5)
      2   from demo
      3   where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4   and col2=col1
      5   and col3=col1
      6   and col4=col1
      7  /
    COUNT(DISTINCTCOL5)
                      1
    Execution Plan
    Plan hash value: 2072716547
    | Id  | Operation          | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT   |      |     1 |   116 |   375   (1)| 00:00:05 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY     |      |     1 |   116 |            |          |
    |*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| DEMO |     1 |   116 |   375   (1)| 00:00:05 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       2 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=5000
    0 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)
    Statistics
            196  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
           1734  consistent gets
            850  physical reads
              0  redo size
            422  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            385  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              7  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processed
    SQL> select /*+ index(demo demo_idx)*/ count(distinct col5)
      2   from demo
      3   where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4   and col2=col1
      5   and col3=col1
      6   and col4=col1
      7  /
    COUNT(DISTINCTCOL5)
                      1
    Execution Plan
    Plan hash value: 189561699
    | Id  | Operation                    | Name     | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| T
    ime     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |          |     1 |   116 |   431   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY               |          |     1 |   116 |            |
            |
    |   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DEMO     |     1 |   116 |   431   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    |*  3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN           | DEMO_IDX |     1 |       |   430   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       3 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=5000
    0 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
          50426  consistent gets
            428  physical reads
              0  redo size
            422  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            385  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              1  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processedNow I modify multiblock_read_count and full scan cost is going up although anyway Oracle by default chooses full scan instead of index access.
    SQL> alter session set db_file_multiblock_read_count = 8;
    Session altered.
    SQL> select count(distinct col5)
      2   from demo
      3   where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4   and col2=col1
      5   and col3=col1
      6   and col4=col1
      7  /
    COUNT(DISTINCTCOL5)
                      1
    Execution Plan
    Plan hash value: 2072716547
    | Id  | Operation          | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT   |      |     1 |   116 |   463   (1)| 00:00:06 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY     |      |     1 |   116 |            |          |
    |*  2 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL| DEMO |     1 |   116 |   463   (1)| 00:00:06 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       2 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=5000
    0 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
           1697  consistent gets
            850  physical reads
              0  redo size
            422  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            385  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              1  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processed
    SQL> select /*+ index(demo demo_idx)*/ count(distinct col5)
      2   from demo
      3   where col1 between 1 and 50000
      4   and col2=col1
      5   and col3=col1
      6   and col4=col1
      7  /
    COUNT(DISTINCTCOL5)
                      1
    Execution Plan
    Plan hash value: 189561699
    | Id  | Operation                    | Name     | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| T
    ime     |
    |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT             |          |     1 |   116 |   431   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    |   1 |  SORT GROUP BY               |          |     1 |   116 |            |
            |
    |   2 |   TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DEMO     |     1 |   116 |   431   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    |*  3 |    INDEX FULL SCAN           | DEMO_IDX |     1 |       |   430   (1)| 0
    0:00:06 |
    Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
       3 - filter("COL2"="COL1" AND "COL3"="COL1" AND "COL4"="COL1" AND
                  "COL1"<=50000 AND "COL2"<=50000 AND "COL3"<=50000 AND "COL4"<=5000
    0 AND
                  "COL1">=1 AND "COL2">=1 AND "COL3">=1 AND "COL4">=1)
    Statistics
              1  recursive calls
              0  db block gets
          50426  consistent gets
              0  physical reads
              0  redo size
            422  bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
            385  bytes received via SQL*Net from client
              2  SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
              1  sorts (memory)
              0  sorts (disk)
              1  rows processedSo I don't know what is the default value of dbfmbrc in XE and not gone too deep to understand how for example system statistics may change your situation.
    Gints Plivna
    http://www.gplivna.eu
    P.S. BTW I used Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.1.0.
    Message was edited by:
    gintsp
    listened to Williams suggestion :)

  • Vista Beta 2 (v5472) + K9N SLI Platinum

    Has anyone managed to get Vista installed from scratch with the "K9N SLI Platinum"?
    I tried, 32bit and 64bit. both failed.

    I got Vista Beta 2 32-bit installed on K9N Ultra + 4200+ X2, but because of the poweroff-issues of K9N-series, Vista was really unstable. Well, my mobo is RMA'd now, so let's see how's gonna work with the new revision.

  • Windows 7 64 bit or 32 bit? (Main idea: Performance & Stability)

    Hello guys
    Currently I have installed Windows 7 32 bit. I'm thinking of changing to the 64 bit version as in 32 bit, Windows only use 2.72GB RAM although I have 4GB RAM on my MacBook Pro 13(you have 4GB RAM, but your computer only use 2.72GB. What a waste)
    I use Windows for games, sometimes for office works (when it comes working with my friends which mostly of them using Windows)
    Currently, I have no problem using the 32 bit.No lags.Fast boot
    I'm wondering, if I use the 64 bit, booting is faster?Less lags?
    (one of my friend use Vista Home Premium 64 bit said that boot using the 64 bit is quite longer than the 32 bit, but the performance is much better then 32 bit)
    I have read some articles regarding gaming on Windows 7 64 bit. Problems, crashing and sometimes BSOD!
    Quite scary on hearing that...
    So, anybody can give me a piece of advice?

    Well, my computer does show the installed RAM as 4GB. But, when I open Computer Properties, it shows:
    RAM installed: 4.00GB (2.72GB Usable)
    When I check with another tools(TuneUp), it also shows that the RAM that used by Windows 7 is 2.72GB

  • I need to install windows 7 on my iMac (via bootcamp), should i stall 32-bit or 64-bit option?

    I need to install windows 7 on my iMac (via bootcamp), should i stall 32-bit or 64-bit option?
    Thanks

    If your system is Core2Duo or better, use 64-bit.  32-bit only sees 3.5 GB RAM max.  64-bit Home sees 16 GB RAM max, and 64-bit Pro sees 192 GB RAM max.

  • I just got a 64 bit new coomputer and use FirFox always. My home page Yahoo an dYahoo email work fine and fill the page but all other websites there is a 3-4' border around the words. What can cause that the 64 bit instead of 32 bit?

    I have tried everything I know in Windows 7 and your suggestions but nothing changes the look of each page. Only about half the page is being used for words and the rest is empty space. As I said my Yahoo and Yahoo email fill the page but nothing else does. Looks like words in a wide picture frame. This is Windows 7....64 bit...4GB memory and 1TB hard drive and Intel 3 chip

    Let me also copy and repeat -- since the developers' club apparently has chosen to not give it any weight or credibility -- a comment by a completely different user, in a different thread:
    "I am using the 64-bit nightly, and it is FAR faster than any release in 32-bit, and I have 2GB of ram. Usually the addon compatibility thing takes minutes, when with the nightly 64-bit, I was done in a matter of seconds. also, I notice that it is faster, pages load faster, there is less lag, and it all around seems better than 32-bit in every aspect, even though it is just automatically compiled and not tweaked."
    So, the developer's club position remains, "there really isn't much need for a 64-bit version", despite comments like that. Hmmm . . .
    Are you SURE you want to stand directly behind that answer, while people shoot at it?

  • Which on is better for reporting ODS/INFOCUBES

    Hello expert's
    1.I want to know which one ODS or INFOCUBES are better (technically/functionally) for reporting purpose in BW.if some one is having any comparisons on ODS/INFOCUBE then plz pass on to me.
    2.Are Z tables reliable in case of data updation and fetching when we create ODS/INFOCUBE.
    3.HOW RELIABLE THE "Z"(*TABLES/REPORTS) are in SAP-BW/R/3-ABAP.

    Gaurav,
    1. Cubes are definitely better for repiorting if cubes are used as cubes which would mean :
    a. Cubes should have aggregated data and nto line item data
    b. Cubes should not be used to store master data
    c. Cubes with large amounts of data are regularly compressed and statistics and relevant indexes maintained
    d. You can check the infocube design by using RS_INFOCUBE_DESIGNS ( I do not remember the program name properly )
    ODs on the other hand :
    1. Should be used for storing detail ( line item ) level data
    They need not always be used for reporting
    2.As for your other questions , please define reliabilty ,  there are many definitions for reliability and if you can elaborate on reliability it would make it easier for a directed reply.
    Arun
    Assign points if helpful

  • How can I get 64-bit windows versions other than 'nightly'

    How can I get a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows that isn't alpha quality (Nightly).
    I'm still running FF 3.6.26 ....
    I've said before, give me a reason to upgrade...64-bits would be a good reason, but the fact that a large number of extensions fail -- (try to install the latest firebug 'swarm' in nightly -- epic fail! (404)...), we not only don't have a swarm for you we've never even heard of you!...
    So give me a version of FF-go-nightly, that's equiv to the latest released version, and it might have a chance...
    I did get most stuff working -- curious why jar files were renamed to 'ja', they don't seem to be in japanese when I unpacked them... ;-) I found it wasn't a typo...
    had a full transparent brower on about blank... a bit weird. but sorta cool...
    finally figured out how the menus were messed up and saw howto correct most of the damage, but without spending alot more time fine-tuning, it would be hard to get it back just right.. but after spending a day (~10am-8pm on using Nightly), upgrading/config'ing various extensions....etc.
    Anyway, I know I said give me a reason.. to upgrade from 3.6 -- a carrot rather than a stick, but too many problems...come on .. even the version was unlucky to begin with! (13!?) .. (I like 13, really, but thought it was humorous).
    So how about 64-bits in something a bit better supported?
    Why not 64bit versions of each of the releases?
    Finally FF got a bit better perf (a bit worse for more debug on, but better in having enough memory, and using a native instruction set rather than the virtualized 32-bit WOW, that it normally runs on...)...

    Mozilla has never released a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows, and the 32-bit versions of Firefox are faster than the Nightly 64-bit version test builds.
    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

Maybe you are looking for