Slow zoom failure in Spaces

Ok, this one is hard to describe, but I'll try. I switch spaces a lot, using the center button of my mouse. This is invaluable when working in Eclipse and having multiple Safari windows open (I just can't seem to remember the details of all those Java libraries!).
From time to time, when switching spaces, I will select the new space. Instead of the new space zooming to the foreground quickly, the selected space will zoom very slowly (I'm running a quad core Mac pro with 5GB so no, it's not the machine). Once it completes this slow zoom, the space will suddenly disappear in favor of a space I didn't select. It's really irritating when you are in a hurry to figure something out or are trying to keep your concentration on a piece of half-written code.
Has anyone else seen this behavior? Does anyone have an explanation or theory as to what might be happening to Spaces? The error doesn't seem to be harmful in any way. But it does represent about the only 'irritating' post 10.5.2 bug I know of on the Mac Pro.
Thanks,

Has anyone read this post? Or is it such a stupid question, there's no use in replying to it?

Similar Messages

MEGA ZOOM IN Z SPACE IS GETTING SLOW...

Hey Everybody,
I need to make a 30 second long zoom in Z space and I'm using a 3D camera for that.
I've separated the dimension on the positioning of the camera so I could use only the 'Z position' to make the zoom.
I'm starting the Z positioning from 0 until -700000 (I know, It's kinda far!)
But I've noticed that my images (which I've placed in 3D space so they pass the camera in Z space) are getting slower and slower because of the far zoom I quess?
How closer I get to the number -700000 how slower the camera movement is going.
How can I fix this? (Using CS6)
Thanks for the help!
Greets,
Stylow

I understand you and that's totally correct but that is not what I meant.
Maybe a simple drawing will help
Example:
Let's say I've used over 200 tree images and created a road by placing them in lines on the left and the right side of the street.
If you look at the TOP view in AE and then look at my drawing example below ( .. would represent the camera and the _ would represent some of the tree images)
the camera .. is moving backwards by using the Z position but after a while (and I get closer to my 30 sec of footage I need) the camera seems to be moving a lot slower then in the beginning when I started
at Z position: 0
I've also checked the keyframe interpolation but its all on linear.
In the real world when you move a camera backward by using the same speed, the speed wouldn't increase after a longer distance.

Slow Zoom In/Out in XY Graph

I am experiencing very slow zoom in/zoom out in XY Graph. Each action takes roughly 5 seconds. Is this normal?
The anti-aliased is not On. I am not using dash lines.
Can someone shed some light here?

As an approxmation use the number of points plotted equal to the number of pixels in the width of the plot area (for a line plot). If you feed the graph more points than it has pixels to display them, the code internal to the graph has to manipulate that data to determine where to place each pixel. When you drop a new XY graph on the front panel it has 250x250 pixels. When I stretched one to fill my screen I had 1580x862. So X-axis arrays larger than a few hundred to about two thousand elements will result in some data manipulation by the graph.
Lynn

Start up and shut down is slow after erasing free space using disk utility?

I went to Disk Utility, clicked Erase, and then "Erase Free Space." When I saw that it was going to take 1 hour and 30 minutes, I tried closing disk utility. It wouldn't let me exit, so instead I pressed "Skip." But when you hover over the "Skip" button it says, "Erase all data and reformat the disk."
I'm wondering if the fact that I pressed the skip button has anything to do with my computer shutting down/starting up A LOT slower now. If so, what can I do to fix it?
Thanks!

Just wanted to give an update. I called Apple and apparently, you shouldn't empty the free space using disk utility while you're logged in. I had to insert the Installations CD and press the "C" button while my computer restarted, and used Disk Utility from there. My start up and shut down speed still isn't exactly the way it was before, but this definitely made a difference.
Thank you to those who replied to my question!

Acr 6.2 slow zoom

Hi
i run photoshop cs5 and acr 6.2 under w7 32bit
i found that the zoom tool is slow and sluggish
is a issue of my system ?
i mean i have to wait one second or more to zoom
thanks

The more "fancy" functions (such as noise reduction, lens corrections, etc.) that you have enabled, the slower ACR's operation will be. Do you have a lot of these features enabled?
The 32 bit version of ACR is also single-threaded, while the 64 bit version is multi-threaded. On a multi-core machine (many are these days) this can make a big practical difference in the responsiveness of the plug-in.
-Noel

Camera raw 7 slow zoom in/out ,but fast process 2003 or 2010

Hi
i did notice that zoom in or out in camera raw is slow , even in middle pc , i'm not talking about hi end pc
but i did find it's amazing fast if use process 2003 or 2010
may i use like default the 2003 or 2010 ?
how can i do it?
thanks
cheers

mantralightroom wrote:
but do you why 2010 is so slow compared to 2010 o 2003 ?
Just a suspicion: Adobe is adding more and more compute-intensive functionality in the newer versions - for example image analysis that affects the way the PV2012 controls work - in anticipation of more and more powerful computers. It's the normal way of things.
PV2012 seems to take about twice as long for me to complete a conversion than its predecessor. But on my reasonably powerful computer that's the difference between 2 and 4 seconds - no problem, really.
I'm not sensing any difference in zoom speed.
everytime i load a canon raw file , it 's always to 2012!
what 's wrong?
I don't know. Photoshop CS5 comes up with PV2010 for me for images I haven't opened before, because that's what I saved my Camera Raw Defaults as. I don't use the camera serial number/ISO specificity settings though.
Are you thinking of updating to Photoshop CS6? I mention this because the released version is available today.
-Noel

Slow Zoom

I create documents that include a hyperlink to a large map that fits width, about 18 degrees. The map has a button that hyperlinks to a particular parcel (Destination) at a zoom level of 150. I would like to SLOW down this operation so when the button is clicked, it will slowly zoom to 150 degrees. Any suggestions?
gotoNamedDest("Parcel");
thiszoom=150;

First of all, a Named Destination is an exact specification of what should be viewed, so it doesn't make sense to go to one and then change the zoom level. You should include that information in the Named Destination itself... But to answer your question, the only way I can see this being possible is by executing a set of delayed commands to change the zoom setting incrementally. Honestly, I wouldn't bother with such a thing. It's much more trouble than its worth.

Zoom from outer space

Hi, to illustrate to the viewer which part of a country the action takes place, I have used Google zooming functionality to show first the continent, then the country and then the region. The Google material is rather patchy. Someone mentioned a NASA site where better material is provided. Anyone knows about this site? If Yes, how then can I perform the zooming-in using CS5.5, Windows 7-64bit?

This is a good site for earth pictures, but you cannot use Premiere for zooming.
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/
You need a screencapture programm or take screen dumps and make something like this (done in AE)
http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/earth_zoom/

Backup failure: more space required than my HD's capacity!

Hi, I'm trying to backup a macbook pro with 250gb capacity HD to an external drive with 270gb free space.
Time Machine gives an error stating the backup is too large for the backup volume, requiring 339.3 GB.
I do have a virtual machine but have instructed Time Machine not to back up my virtual disks.
What's going on?!

poiuuiop wrote:
Backup content size: 294.9 GB excluded items size: 11.8 GB for volume HD
Starting pre-backup thinning: 339.71 GB requested (including padding), 309.81 GB available
Your TM partition is much too small. The general rule is, it should have roughly 2-3 times as much space as the data it's backing-up, since it keeps previous copies of items you've deleted or changed. See item #1 of the Frequently Asked Questions post at the top of this forum for more details.
Plus, TM needs free workspace (the "padding" in the message) on the destination (just as OSX does on it's boot volume). Thus the 295 GB of data (having already excluded 11.8 GB), plus 20% yields the 340 GB it needs.
While you might be able to squeeze most of your data into that partition, TM's not going to work well or for long unless it has a lot more space.
What else is on that drive? If you don't have backups of that, your best bet may be to get another, larger drive, big enough to back-up both your internal HD and the other data on the current drive.
If that's not possible, you might be able to use a "clone," such as CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper! in the existing partition, but even that would be very tight (295 GB in a 310 GB partition doesn't leave OSX much workspace), and anything changed or deleted in error, or corrupted, would be lost.

Problem to do sweet/slow zoom-in and zoom out on picture

Hi,
I'm now doing a costum slide show ... i'm trying to made my picture zoom in very slowly ... but everytime picture is distord during the motion.
Some body have and idea ? ... i'm trying to do something like that: http://www.theglobalfund.org/html/accesstolife/en/
But I can only do this: http://www.dev.papahost.ca/bond/
Thanks to everybody who will help me to find my problem !

First try making the images the actual size they will be in the Flash file before you import them if you haven't already done that. The waviness in it gives me the impression the image is much larger than the size you show. Then for the image in the library, right click on it and select Properties. In the interface that opens select the option to allow smoothing. See if that makes a difference.

Slow motion failure

ok heres the deal. i have an external hd that i am working off of and whenever i render clip to do slow motion it renders and then at the end it just goes back to normal time. so i have export the clip from my hd to my computer and unplug the hd then slow motion the clip on the computer and then put it back on my hd. doesn anyone know why it wont let me slow motion off of my hd thanks
powerbook g4 15" Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Hi Truxton,
in addition to Sue's question:
is it FAT formatted or MacOsExtended?
start Disk Utility app, select ext. Drive an have a look in the lower third...
@Sue: note to myself: need to add a new text to my V-list....

Slow switch between desktops (spaces)

Hi all
Just updated to 10.8. I think this is a new problem, one that was not in OsX Lion. I have a word document on desktop1 and a pdf file (or something else) on desktop2. I need to switch between deskt.1&2 quite fast and fluently to take notes from the pdf. But I can't start typing right away in the word document. I know I could just have the two programs on deskt.1 and cmd+tab between, but I prefer the other way.
This is a bit of a flaw, don't you think? Solution?
Sincerely,
Helgi

Sure, with compiz you can do a lot more than this . I've installed KDE4 again, but cannot get it to switch desktops the way I wanted. Scroll over pager works on every DE, though it requires precise mouse aiming over the pager. In XFCE I don't have to aim - just move the mouse to the side of the screen (where I have margin set, so desktop is available there) and scroll.
Alt+scroll requires additional movement, which is annoying when for example I do things, that don't require keyboard use (like composing the playlist, browsing the web, changing the GTK2 themes and so on ). I like minimizing things to do to achieve the goal. Therefore I also use cairo-dock, which removed additional mouse click (for raising the menu) when opening the most used applications...
A funny and I think useful feature I found in KDE4 is action bound to scroll over the window titlebar - it moves the window and the user to the next desktop .
Last edited by Devastator (2009-01-19 12:50:07)

Space bar scrolling in safari is slow and laggy

Been searching this for a few days, and while I know some people are having "jaggy" scrolling issues in Safari (caused - or not - by the new Flash install), my experience is slightly different, and appeared at some point over the last week or so.
In short, it's just a lot slower to scroll via space bar. It used to snap right down to the next part of the page almost instantaneously, but now it sorta "slides" down. Scanning long web pages is a drag.
Chrome and Firefox still jump instantly to the next page via space bar, so it's a Safari-based issue. Curiously, the two-finger scroll is still fairly instant on Safari, but it's not a natural movement for me.
Anyone else having this issue, or possible fixes?

Ok...
Some users with a similar issue found a solution by uninstalling the Flash plugin, then reinstall new, then repair permissions. See this thread: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=11691898&#11691898
Uninstall Flash
Install the most recent version of Flash here.
Now repair permissions.
Launch Disk Utility. (Applications/Utilities) Select MacintoshHD in the panel on the left, select the FirstAid tab. Click: Repair Disk Permissions. When it's finished from the Menu Bar, Quit Disk Utility and restart your Mac. If you see a long list of "messages" in the permissions window, it's ok. That can be ignored. As long as you see, "Permissions Repair Complete" when it's finished... you're done. Quit Disk Utility and restart your Mac.

MacPro Quad Core 32g Ram running slow Logic using only 9g in Activity Monitor

Well its taken a while, but this is my first foray into the world of forums! I'm so hacked off with this regular problem and havent been able to find anything anywhere to solve it i thought i'd see if anyone has any similiar issues and maybe even a solve to it.
So.... im an orchestrator and producer and after my mid 2008 Macbook Pro with 8g ram started freezing up i invested in this 3 years ago -
Mac Pro 2x 2.4ghz Quad Core intel Xeon and stuck in 32gb of lovely Crucial RAM and 3 seperate internal 1TB drives with one for operating system (10.6.8), one for Audio recording/saving and one for all my sample libraries.
32gb ram - should be enough i thought!
So i regularly run at least 30 VI's - Ni The giant, Spitfire Orchestral librabies (say 12 string instruments up to 0.69g per load) LASS strings, plus perc STYLUS, ABBEY road drums, Trillian basses (acoustic/electric), ominisphere etc etc. So pretty hefty sample instruments. But theyre sooo nice!!
In addition, the 32 bit server will come alive (NOT! So unstable i find) with my Waves plugs etc.
Looking at ACTIVITY MONITOR however i might be not touching 9 gig (and sometimes even less) of usage for Logic, and only say 800MB for 32 bit server and have NOTHING else open - and what do i find .....
- Mouse lag and cant really do anything with the mouse whilst playing the track - cant adjust volume - too slow, zooming problems
- Takes a good 2-3 seconds for track to stop playing
Dont get System OVERLOADS so much, its just that the system goes REALLLLLY slow.
What ive tried- - -
- Running Mountain Lion off another drive (havent had time to install it and wanted to be sure everything worked etc)
- Tried all audio prefs - large/small buffers/threads etc and yes i am on 1024.
in a nutshell how come with 32g RAM everything is so slow when barely using 10g of that???????
I dread getting to the end of a project cos i know im gonna be freezing so much, but with so much editing all the time for the orchestral parts i need everything unfrozen and working.
Sorry if this is long winded but wanted to describe what im experiencing.
Any feedback most welcome! Thankyou in advance.
Mac Pro 2x 2.4ghz Quad Core intel Xeon 32g RAM, 3TB storage
10.6.8
Logic Pro 9.1.8

Hi
A few thoughts:
julian6400 wrote:
In addition, the 32 bit server will come alive (NOT! So unstable i find) with my Waves plugs etc.
The 32bit server is a pita: Waves v9 are 64bit compatible (they run fine). 32 bit VI's can be run outside Logic using Vienna Ensemble Pro (see later)
julian6400 wrote:
So i regularly run at least 30 VI's - Ni The giant, Spitfire Orchestral librabies (say 12 string instruments up to 0.69g per load) LASS strings, plus perc STYLUS, ABBEY road drums, Trillian basses (acoustic/electric), ominisphere etc etc. So pretty hefty sample instruments. But theyre sooo nice!!
Some of these VI's are extremely CPU hungry: Abbey Rd drums for example, really do hammer the CPU. What does Logic's Performance meter show in the way of CPU load. What does Activity Monitor show regarding CPU load?
With 32G of RAM, this should not be the issue, but you might have general CPU problems (see above), and you may also have Sample disk streaming limitations if all the Loibraries you mention are on the same drive. How does Activity Monitor look regarding disk access? You might find it helpful to add a second drive and split the sample libraries across 2 for faster disk access.
I presume that you have plenty of free space on the System drive?
Logic can get sluggish if the Undo info gets way too big, and also if there are loads of regions in the Arrange: check Options:Project Information.
Many are finding some benefits (me included) by running the VI's in Vienna Ensemble Pro:
Better CPU load distribution than directly in Logic
"Persistant Samples": they can remain loaded whilst you switch Logic Projects
Logic is effectively running much less itself, so generally flies.
32bit Plugs hosted separately in VEP so no 32bit Bridge issues in Logic
Something to consider,though perhaps not yet, would be setting up a Slave computer using VEP.
CCT

How much disk space is too little?

I have an early 2008 15" MBP with the 200GB 7200 drive. I'm currently running at about 20-25GB free space. I do a lot of photography and keep clearing off photo sessions to external drives to continually free up disk space. But the problem is that the computer is getting really slow and I'm sure the lack of free disk space is not helping.
Does anyone know at what point OSX gets starts getting slow regarding free disk space?
I really want to replace the drive but I have Apple Care and I believe this would void the warranty.

RFC2662 wrote:
Does anyone know at what point OSX gets starts getting slow regarding free disk space?
I really want to replace the drive but I have Apple Care and I believe this would void the warranty.
There is no magic number here, RFC2662. It depends a great deal on what you use your computer for.
You are certainly down in the sort of area where problems can set in though.
There are two reasons why drives get slow when they get full. Slower sector access speeds and increasing levels of free space (and ultimately file) fragmentation.
The inner sectors , which generally fill up last on your HD, are, of course, located on parts of the platter(s) with a smaller circumference than the outer sectors. The rotational speed of the standard drives used in modern computers operate at a fixed rotational rate when reading and writing data. Accordingly in any single rotation the heads will traverse a much smaller distance when operating on the inner sectors than on the outer, and the speed at which data can be read and written is accordingly also somewhat slower. The effect is not huge, and is mitigated to some extent by the "hot spot" strategies and the like used by OSX to keep relevant system related and other frequently accessed files in the faster , outer, bands, but it will still slow your drive.
The second (more serious) cause of slow downs (and potentially other problems) as drives get full is free space fragmentation.
Most users, as long as they leave plenty of free space available , and don't work regularly in situations where very large files are written and rewritten, are unlikely to notice the effects of fragmentation on either their files or on the drives free space much.
As the drive fills the situations becomes progressively more significant, however.
Some people will tell you that "OSX defrags your files anyway". This is only partly true. It defrags files that are less than 20 MB in size. It doesn't defrag larger files and it doesn't defrag the free space on the drive. In fact the method it uses to defrag the smaller files actually increases the extent of free space fragmentation. Eventually, in fact, once the largest free space fragments are down to less than 20 MB (not uncommon on a drive that has , say only 10% free space left) it begins to give up trying to defrag altogether.
Again, this doesn't matter for most users when the drive is half empty or better, but it does when it gets fullish, and it does especially when it gets fullish if you are regularly dealing with large files , like video or serious audio and photographic stuff.
If you look through this discussion board you will see quite a few complaints from people who find that their drive gets "slow". Often you will see that say that "still have 10 or 20 gigs free" or the like.
On modern large drives by this stage they are usually in fact down to the point where the internal defragmentation routines can no longer operate , where their drives are working like navvies to keep up with finding space for any larger files, together with room for "scratch files", virtual memory, directories etc etc etc. Such users are operating in a zone where they put a lot more stress on their drives as a result, often start complaining of increased "heat", etc etc. Most obviously, though, the computer slows down to a speed not much better than that of molasses. Eventually the directories and other related files may collapse altogether and they find themselves with a next to unrecoverable disk problems.
By this time, of course, defragging itself has already become just about impossible. The amount of work required to shift the data into contiguous blocks is immense, puts additional stress on the drive, takes forever, etc etc. The extent of fragmentation of free space at this stage can be simply staggering, and any large files you subsequently write are likely to be divided into many , many tens of thousands of fragments scattered across the drive. Not only this, but things like the "extents files", which record where all the bits are located, will begin to grow astronomically as a result, as the computer struggles to keep track of where everything is l, putting even more pressure on your already stressed drive, and increasing the risk of major failures.
Ultimately this adds up to a situation where you can identify maybe three "phases" of mac life when it comes to the need for defragmentation.
In the "first phase" (with your drive less than half full), fragmentation doesn't matter much at all - probably not enough to even make it worth doing.
In the "second phase" (between , say 50% free space and 20% free space remaining) it becomes progressively more of an issue, but , depending on the use you put your computer to you won't see much difference at the higher levels of free space unless you are serious video buff who needs to keep their drives operating as efficiently and fast as possible - chances are they will be using fast external drives over FW800 or eSata to compliment their internal HD anyway.
At the lower end though (when boot drives get down around the 20% mark on , say, a 250 or 500 Gig drive) I certainly begin to see an impact on performance and stability when working with large image files, mapping software, and the like, especially those which rely on the use of their own "scratch" files, and especially in situations where I am using multiple applications simultaneously, if I haven't defragmented the drive for a while.
For me, defragmenting (I variously use a "clone , wipe and clone back"process or use iDefrag - it is the only third party app I trust for this after seeing people with problems using TechToolPro and Drive Genius for such things) gives a substantial performance boost in this sort of situation and improves operational stability. I usually try to get in first these days and defrag more regularly (about once a month) when the drive is down to 30% free space or lower.
Between 20% and 10% free space is a bit of a "doubtful region". Most people will still be able to defrag successfully in this sort of area, though the time taken and the risks associated increase as the free space declines. My own advice to people in this sort of area is that they start choosing their new , bigger HD, because they obviously are going to need one very soon, and try to "clear the decks" so that they maintain at least that 20% free buffer until they do. Defragging very regularly (perhaps once a fortnight) will actually benefit them very substantially usually, but maybe doing so will lull them into a false sense of security and keep them from seriously recognising that they need to be moving to a bigger HD!
Once they are down to that last ten per cent of free space, though, they are treading on glass. Free space fragmentation at least will already be a serious issue on their computers but if they try to defrag with a utility without first making substantially more space available then they may find it runs into problems or is so slow that they give up half way through and do the damage themselves, especially if they are using one of the less "forgiving" utilities!
In this case I think the best way to proceed is to clone the internal drive to a larger external with SuperDuper, replace the internal drive with a larger one and then clone back to it. No-one down to the last ten percent of their drive really has enough room to move. Defragging it will certainly speed it up, and may even save them from major problems briefly, but we all know that before too long they are going to be in the same situation again. Better to deal with the matter properly and replace the drive with something more akin to their real needs once this point is reached. Heck, big HDs are as cheap as chips these days! It is mad to struggle on with sluggish performance, instability, and the possible risk of losing the lot, in such a situation.
So it comes down to this:
1) If you really need maximum speed from your drive, for heavy duty video editing and the like, then you are probably best off keeping the internal drive for system and application use, keeping it as empty as possible, and using fast FW800 or eSata drives for your work files.
2) For the vast majority of users, though, they will notice little or no difference until free space on the drive falls to 20% or less of total capacity. (There will be a reduction in performance, but it won't really matter , or be obvious, to most users). Once the drive falls below about 30% they will benefit a bit from occasional defragmentation, either using the "clone, wipe and clone back" approach, or using a good utility like iDefrag.
3) Once drives get down below 20% users should be defragmenting more regularly, doing their best to shift unnecessary stuff off the drive, and thinking about upgrading their drives to a larger one. They will need to be cautious about any activity which involves the use of very large files and are likely to see substantial performance degradation when they do so.
4) once they get below 10% it is definitely time for a bigger drive if they can't at least get back above the 20% free level. They will also need to defragment after freeing up the necessary space.
In your case your symptoms are typical of an overfull, badly fragmented, drive. You need to free up quite a bit more room, defragment the drive, and organise getting a bigger one installed.
Cheers
Rod

Slow zoom failure in Spaces

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for