Size does matter!

hello! im in need of some help with my acrobat x. im trying to reduce the sizes of some vary bloated textbooks uisng AAX (adobe acrobat x). i have managed to reduce the size of a 290mb file down to 80mb which is awesome! the problem comes with the 350mb+ files.
i run win9 x64 on a small 32gb ssd. since im broke i have to make due with what i have and upgrading to a bigger ssd is out of the question and hasent been a problem until i embarked on this endevour. aax uses the last free space on my ssd (about 3GB) and not only crashes itself but it causes problems for system that eventually forces me to reboot.
so heres my question, is it possible to change the destination of where the temp files are stored?? this would really help me out. school starts in a little over a week and i need slim 3GB's down to top shape so that they fit in my brothers lame kindle fire. anyway, thnx in advance for any and all help!
-b00kw0rm

Try using Extract Pages to make smaller pieces of the file, work on each one, and combine them.

Similar Messages

Anxiously awaiting (size does matter??)

just a little concerned about it all fiting together. Zalman 7000a AlCu, K8n Neo2 with the NB fan and Sapphire x800 Toxic with that cooling device on it. Am I going to have to get a grinder, or is it just going to be extremely tight?

Hey I appreciate that news. How do you like that HIS card? I would have got that one but really needed one with vivo functionality. Hope this toxic does the trick. The coolers look exactly the same on both cards, color and stickers aside that is. Is it as quiet as they claim? Really attempting to make this puter quieter than my current one, where I didn't pay any attention to the sound specs of anything

SDO_INTERSECTION & tolerance (obviously size does matter)

In my layers overlay mechanizem I perform a lot of SDO_INTERSECTION. In some cases it returns completly wrong results which is somehow related to tolerance used . I understand that tolerance is used for internal computing in Oracle Spatial, but I think that such difference as in following example is pure Oracle bug.
In this example, polygons overlay on very, very small area - almost 0 m2. When intresect using tolerance of 0.0000000005 I get intersection of area of 6303,39484405518 m2 (wrong), when using tolerance of 0.00000000005 I get 0 m2 (ok). Between 1.5 milion polygons to be overlayed, there is about 30 such cases, but there is no obvious pattern, regarding number of decimal places of point and tolerance.
What do you think, is this bug in Oracle or should I use tolerance on differant way? I have also crashes, described in SDO_AGGR_UNION crashes the session but with combination of tolerances I have now, I avoid crashes.
I have Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.1.0.4.0.
select
SDO_GEOM.SDO_AREA(
SDO_GEOM.SDO_INTERSECTION(
MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY(2003, NULL, NULL,SDO_ELEM_INFO_ARRAY(1,1003,1),
SDO_ORDINATE_ARRAY(
575637.792      ,157828.133
,575639.3      ,157824.61
,575639.03      ,157823.14
,575637.84      ,157816.31
,575631.06      ,157798.98
,575618.21      ,157779.68
,575621.34397071 , 157773.943053618
,575621.71      ,157775.59
,575630.346      ,157788.42
,575634.54      ,157799.77
,575637.254      ,157810.873
,575641.695      ,157820.002
,575637.786906933,157828.14490562
,575637.792      ,157828.133
MDSYS.SDO_GEOMETRY(2003, NULL, NULL,SDO_ELEM_INFO_ARRAY(1,1003,1),
SDO_ORDINATE_ARRAY(
575703.4 ,157604.1
,575716 ,157639.6
,575743.998 ,157709.215
,575727.483 ,157718.717
,575717.303 ,157722.789
,575701.014 ,157727.54
,575669.568 ,157739.53
,575658.934 ,157747.222
,575653.052 ,157754.462
,575662.328 ,157773.013
,575674.318 ,157796.994
,575680.111 ,157797.607
,575676.21 ,157810.367
,575674 ,157817.6
,575660.494 ,157826.142
,575655.5 ,157829.3
,575652.3 ,157825.6
,575636.673 ,157837.372
,575635.774 ,157832.339
,575641.695 ,157820.002
,575637.254 ,157810.873
,575634.54 ,157799.77
,575630.346 ,157788.42
,575621.71 ,157775.59
,575618.749 ,157762.267
,575620.23 ,157755.852
,575626.398 ,157750.424
,575642.929 ,157739.321
,575657.486 ,157731.672
,575666.626 ,157726.182
,575679.069 ,157723.015
,575691.285 ,157717.133
,575696.717 ,157715.635
,575707.079 ,157707.492
,575703.15 ,157701.103
,575714.974 ,157692.935
,575711.767 ,157682.819
,575705.352 ,157664.561
,575693 ,157642.3
,575700.5 ,157640.3
,575703.7 ,157628.1
,575701 ,157607.9
,575703.4 ,157604.1
, 0.0000000005 ) --tolerance for sdo_intersection
, 0.000000000005) --tolerance for sdo_area
area
from dual
Can you be so kind and check this on other versions/platforms.
Regards,
Saso

It looks like you are hitting a bug (4707623) as described in the Metalink Note 4707623.8. Your best bet would be to login to Metalink and look up this bug/note in order to ascertain the best way to mitigate this problem.
I hope this helps.
-Justin

Tables are deleted but database size does not change in sql server 2008r2

Hi All,
20GB Tables are deleted in my database but database size does not change and disk size showing same size.

Hi ,
I have ran the Disk usage by Top Tables report and Identified couple of tables with unwanted data for last 5 years. I have deleted the data for the first 3 years and then ran the Disk usage by Top Tables report again. When I compared the report before
and after the data deletion, I have noticed certain facts which is not matching with what I know or learned from experts like you. The following are the points where I am looking for clarification:
1.Reserved (KB) has been reduced. I was expecting the data Reserved (KB) will remain the same after the data deletion.
2. The Data(KB) and Indexes(KB) fields have been reduced as expected. The Unused(KB) field have been increased as expected.
I was expecting the total of Data(KB) and Indexes(KB) field space gained will be equal to the Unused(KB) field gained after deleting the data. But that is not the case. When I deducted(subtracted) the difference in the Reserved(KB)(Difference before
and after data deletion) field from the Total of space gained from the data deletion is equal to the Unused(KB) gained field value.
I am not a SQL expert and not questioning but trying to understand whether we really gain space by deleting data from the tables. Also keen to get the concepts right, but my testing by deleting some records confused me.
Looking ahead to all your expert advice.
Thanks,
Vennayat

In Adobe Acrobat X Standard, our user used to be able to resize drawings to 8.5 x 10, it stopped working yesterday. It allows her to do this without an error but the size does not change?

In Adobe Acrobat X Standard, our user used to be able to resize drawings to 8.5 x 10, it stopped working yesterday. It allows her to do this without an error but the size does not change?

Try unmounting the volume on your iMac using Disk Utility. Then mount it again. You may need to reboot the laptop or relaunch its Finder process (using the Force Quit window) after remounting the drive on your iMac. Remember that no process may be accessing any files on the drive you plan to unmount, or the unmount will fail. Unmounting and remounting an external drive on my iMac made it become visible on my MacBook Pro after it had disappeared.

Chart size does not extend with the data

Hi,
One of my reports has a horizontal bar and the chart size does not grow with the data. The chart displays fine if I have minimal amount of data. If the data grows, the display is bizarre, it's just messed up. Is there an option I need to set? Please provide your inputs.
Thanks
Arch

Hi,
I tried with all these options, but no success. I remember I used to get full visible charts initially. Not sure what has happened charts are getting chopped off by at least 50px right and bottom. Interestingly When I export the chart to Excel it looks perfect.
Any suggestion. Has anyone faced this issues. I am using 11.1.1.5 version.

Brush preview size does not match brush stroke

The brush preview size does not match brush stroke. I've insert a pic of the problem. I tried allmost everythning, but nothing works.
Does anyone have a solution for this problem?
*I use a wacom tablet.

Is your system cursor size set to something other than normal?
under Apple, System Preferences, Universal Access.

Final print size does not match screen view.

Hi
I am having problems getting my final prints to match the screen view. Most recently I have had this problem: I have an image that is sized to 5X7. I have it on a 5X7 template in the print module of Lightroom. The image dimensions in Lightroom say 5X7. I print on 5X7 paper (I actually measured it to be sure). ON the screen they look perfect, match the the templates and measure out fime with the onscreen rulers. Without fail a portion of the print is cut off on the final print. The long side of the print is the most effected. This is not just limited to 5X7's, it happens across the board. Is this a common problem or I am I doing something wrong? In the 5X7 example above the print comes out 5.2 X 7.3 give or take. I am using Lightroom 5.3 on an iMac running OS 10.9.1. The printer is a Canon Pro 100.
I welcome any help with this.
Thank you
Joe

If the problem is that the printed image is being scaled larger, this is a very common side effect with borderless mode settings in print drivers. Typically, (though sometimes you can prevent this where alternative borderless options are given) - an extra unrequested scaling % ensures that any physical mis-registration or inaccuracy of the paper size, does not leave any accidental white edges.
That's nothing to do with LR's end of the process, if so.

HT4854 What size does the recovery partition need to be for Lion or Mt Lion?

What size does the recovery partition need to be for Lion or Mt Lion?

Maybe I'm approaching the problem the wrong way. My problem is that I installed a new HDD in my laptop after cloning it to a backup drive, and I wanted to install the OS after formatting the drive using Disk Utilities from my desktop machine. Since I had Lion installed from the App Store as a paid download, I thought I'd start with a freshly downloaded install of Lion, but I can't access the internet directly with my laptop since it has no OS or apps. So I'm downloading Lion to my desktop machine hoping to install it on my laptop as a Target HD. Is that possible? Does the App Store download allow choosing which drive to install on?

Cannot submit widget to Apple Downloads : File size does not match

Hello all,
I made a widget to play Go that I finalized yesterday ( http://lesiteajulien.free.fr ).
Unfortunately, I have not succeeded to uploading it to the Apple widget repository, since the submit page keeps returning the following error :
"The filesize from the file you uploaded and the file that is downloaded from the given download URL do NOT match."
But I am absolutely sure that both zip files are the SAME. I downloaded it from my server a few times and compared the size with the original file I'm sending to Apple: they match. So I guess my server is not the cause.
I tryied from various places and with various browsers.
Did anybody have any similar problem while trying to upload a widget ?
Any idea ?
Thanks for your help.
Julien

tntemerson wrote:
The sales people at the Apple store told me that Time Machine makes a true restorable system picture of the native HDD during backups.
So I'm surprised when the backup runs through to a reported completion but the final backup size does not match the stated estimate for a "full backup" which is the same as the Macintosh HD used space.
Time Machine automatically excludes some things that aren't needed for a full system restore: system work files, most logs & caches, trash, some indexes, etc. So it should be a few GBs less than what's on your system, but of course varies a lot from one Mac to another.
See the tan box in #11 of Time Machine - Frequently Asked Questions for the gory details.

IDCS3 "page size does not fit w margin/column" error when changing bleed

Anyone know the source of this problem?
After deselecting "allow pages to shuffle" my bleed automatically, mysteriously, changes from 0pt to 9pt. When i try to change it back, I get an error: "This page size does not fit with the current margin and column settings. . ."
This happens on multiple docs.
The problem occurs in both Tiger and Leopard.
Help!
Thanks

I'm having the same problem in CS4 when I try to create a document. I zeroed out the margins and gutters too but I didn't have any luck. It's also inconsistent in my case. I can create a document the size of a US business card with a margin of 3p0 but when it get's to something bigger than that but smaller than a letter, no gutter or margin will work.
But that only applies to document creation for some reason. So far, my workaround has been to create a default document and then resize it using the document setup after the fact. It's a pain and it's weird, but that's what I've had to do.
If you've come up with a better solution since your post, I'm all ears.

For h.264 encoding, what size does the project need to be to avoid black bars on the top and bottom.

For h.264 encoding, what size does the project need to be to avoid black bars on the top and bottom. I am exporting the mp4 to Brightcove.

Hi there,
Which version of Adobe Captivate (If it is Adobe Captivate) is it and which Operating System is it?
Thanks.

Annoying 'Could not use the history eraser because the current canvas size does not match that of the history state' message

Does anyone know if it is possible to get rid of the message 'Could not use the history eraser because the current canvas size does not match that of the history state'?. It comes up if I hit the alt/option key while I have the eraser selected. Something I do by accident all the time.

The way you've described it, one gets the distinct impression you do not have a clue as to what the history brush does and how to use it.
You need to read up on it. Read the Help files and google for tutorials.
First you need to create an image (with actual pixels in it), edit it as desired, then make a snapshot of the edited image, then target the snapshot with the history brush tool, then go back in the History panel to the step before your edits and selectively paint your edits in with the History Brush.

Problem opening mail attachments...were opening seamlessly on os 7.0...get an error Filename Office open XML document/presentation File size Does anyone have a solution? Please help.

problem opening mail attachments...were opening seamlessly on os 7.0...get an error
Filename
Office open XML document/presentation
File size
Does anyone have a solution? Please help.

Hi Charlotte,
You don't say what your version of Windows you have. Assuming XP, go to Start | Run, type DXDIAG and click OK. Click the Sound tab and run the tests to eliminate a hardware problem first of all. If you don't hear anything, check your cables first of all. Also make sure "Mute" isn't checkmarked in your sound setup. You'll find that in Windows Control Panel.
Which browser do you use? If you have Firefox 4, sign up to the HTML5 trial @ http://www.youtube.com/html5
HTML5 is the latest video standard and doesn't require Flash player. Google is in the process of converting all its files to work with the new format. It may solve you problem. If you don't have Firefox 4, you can get it from here: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/fx/
IE8 doesn't support HTML5.
To clean out your temp files, go to Start | Run, type: CLEANMGR and click OK. Click OK again to start the utility. Tick all the boxes except "Compress old files" because the latter takes too long, and then click OK. You can run this utility any time you wish by the way.
The above steps will hopefully fix your problem. If not, post here again please.

On certain sites, some lines have the lower half missing. Changing the font or its size does not help. The error does not appear with Iceape or Chromium.

On some sites certain lines appear with the bottom half missing, as if obliterated. Changing the font or its size does not help. The error does not appear with Iceape or Chromium.

I looks that the whole line doesn't fit in the container, so the bottom part is cut off. The usual cause is that a font is used that takes more vertical space, so any increase or changes from the font in what the website prescribes can cause this issue. I've seen web pages that were even affected by changing the minimum font size from none to 1 (!). If you do not have the font installed that the website specifies then Firefox will fallback to another (default) font that may have different dimensions.

Size does matter!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for