Why acrobat 9 pro take 6 time more memory than acrobat 8 pro ?

I have tested acrobat 9 pro on a web capture pages (local files) and did the same with acrobat 8 pro.
At start acrobat 9 use 260 ko ram instead of 43 ko for acrobat 8.
the capture could never end with acrobat 9 because it eat more than 1 600 ko ram and i have an error : not enough memory.
acrobat 8 could finish the job with 400 ko memory used.
The configuration of the 2 captures are the same.
The result of the capture is different : acrobat 8 add lot of pages return after images.
Could i optimize ram use in acrobat 9 ?

Good day,
I'd like to confirm a few things:
What action/activity are you performing in Acrobat when it crashes?
Is the crash consistent at the same point?
You stated in the subject '..after upgrading to 10.6.7'
What OS was on your iMac when you purchased it?
Was this problem occuring when using an earlier verion of 10.6.x?
Have you applied to font update Apple released to address some of the problems they introduced with 10.6.7?
Did you perform a clean install of Acrobat on your iMac after you purchased it or was the application transferred in some way?
I hope we can get this resolved for you!
Regards,
David
Acrobat Community Manager
Adobe Systems

Similar Messages

WHy does Plug-in -contianter use 1-1/ times more memory than FF itself

So rather than help me fix my problems with 3.6 which was working fine except for a little thing I moved ups to 11.2 because it was suppose to be so much better. Well now Plug-in -container is using nearly 1/2 gig of memory and climbing. FF is using300K. I'm not a gamer. Best i do is YouTube.
So can i disable the plug in and somebody remind me how i did that in 3.6. You go into :about:config" right. Then What :)

Basically "plugin-container" is nothing more than a place for plugins such as Flash, quicktime, etc. to sit. That way if they crash, instead of bringing down the Firefox window, just the plugin crashes. So, if you get high memory usage in the plugin-container, it is the fault of those plugins. You could disable the process, but that would just make the Firefox.exe process use that much more RAM.
What you can try doing is this:
Alot of things nowadays are hardware accelerated, which means they try to use your graphics card to help speed things up. Try updating your graphics driver (Firefox uses your graphics card for some rendering, and an out of date graphics card driver can cause problems. [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-upgrade-my-graphics-drivers].
Also, some extensions can cause problems with memory usage as well. Type "About:addons" (without the quotes) in the address bar. Disable your extensions one by one, restarting Firefox between each one, until you find the trouble maker. Once you do, you can disable that add-on.

Why outlook2011 mac version* takes long time to boot with OSX

why outlook2011 mac version* takes long time to boot with OSX

Okay, so after doing all of the above, the computer still takes between 40 seconds and 1 minute or so to boot up, and the VersionCue messages still appear. However I discovered that the "kdcmond cannot retrieve..." messages disappeared after I disabled my ethernet connections. So at least I know that that had nothing to do with the extended boot-up time.
I have heard that the more RAM you have, the longer it takes to boot due to the RAM count. Since I have 10 GB, maybe this is why?
I've included the most recent Console messages below:
22/4/08 9:56:16 AM com.apple.launchctl.System[2] launchctl: Please convert the following to launchd: /etc/mach_init.d/dashboardadvisoryd.plist
22/4/08 9:56:16 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (com.adobe.versioncueCS3) Unknown key: ServiceDescription
22/4/08 9:56:16 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cups-lpd) Unknown key: SHAuthorizationRight
22/4/08 9:56:16 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.cups.cupsd) Unknown key: SHAuthorizationRight
22/4/08 9:56:16 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (org.ntp.ntpd) Unknown key: SHAuthorizationRight
22/4/08 9:56:39 AM com.apple.SystemStarter[28] Starting Aladdin USB daemon
22/4/08 9:56:39 AM org.ntp.ntpd[25] Error : nodename nor servname provided, or not known
22/4/08 9:56:39 AM com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.UserEventAgent-LoginWindow[74]) Exited: Terminated
22/4/08 9:56:39 AM com.apple.launchctl.Aqua[90] launchctl: Please convert the following to launchd: /etc/machinit_peruser.d/com.adobe.versioncueCS3.monitor.plist
22/4/08 9:56:42 AM com.apple.launchd[82] (0x1011e0.VersionCueCS3monitor) Failed to check-in!

Hi i insttalled the free trial 3O days MacScan on OsX10.5 is it normal that for full scaning it takes so long time more even than one day?! on the other hand this application hasn't any uninstaller on image disc ,so how can i uninstal it from my hard?

Hi i insttalled the free trial 3O days MacScan on OsX10.5 is it normal that for full scaning it takes so long time more even than one day?! on the other hand this application hasn't any uninstaller on image disc ,so how can i uninstal it from my hard?Thanks

Get rid of the tracking cookies. They are used to profile and track your browsing history. While they are privacy invading, by calling them spyware, MacScan is being a little dramatic in trying to sell you its crap. And in the future, for whatever browser you use, don't allow third-party cookies.
To prevent tracking, get Ghostery. In addition to having Ghostery and forbidding third-party cookies, I clear out all cookies from one browsing session to another. If you always do that, you won't have any tracking cookies to worry about, so you won't need MacScan to find them for you. Btw, MacScan finds the tracking cookies in the first few minutes of scanning; if you want to use it for that, then that's all the time you need to run it for. But, as I said, you won't have any tracking cookies around if you just remove all cookies and don't allow third-party cookies. As soon as you visit a site that needs them, you'll just get new ones. No problem.
Read all about cookies here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

OLAP taking 5 time more space than RDBMS?

Hello,
I have been investigating Oracle's OLAP capabilities for about 2 weeks now in an effort to determine whether OLAP would be a feasible solution for my company's data warehousing needs.
I have created an extremely simple analytic workspace that is based on a single relational fact table. The fact table contains both the dimension values (integers) and the measuers (floats). There are a total of about 300,000 dimension values all of which reference measures (the data is perfectly dense).
I created a dimension and a data cube using the Enterprise Manager OLAP interface. Next, I created the analytic workspace using the Analytic Workspace Manager wizard. This AW building step took an extraordinary amount of time considering the simplicity of the data. In fact, I started it on a Friday afternoon, monitored it for about 2 hours, and it still hadn't finished, so I let it run over the weekend (for this reason, I am not sure how much time exactly it took, but it's definitely quite a few hours). Is this normal? Copying the relational table takes 10 seconds, and I find it hard to believe that building an AW with the same data would take so much time.
Finally, coming back on Monday I see that the AW was created successfully. I went into the tablespace map to look at how big the binary blob is. To my great surprise, the AW was taking up about 5 times more extents than my relational table (contrary to what I've read so far about OLAP and its supposedly very storage-efficient data cubes).
I was wondering if anybody could advise me on what I could have done wrong and/or inefficiently? Am I missing something here, or is OLAP really consuming much more space comapred to relational tables?
Thanks!
Dobo Radichkov

Gotcha.
Well, here are a few ideas:
1) There is a bug in the 9i OLAP where dimension loads take WAY too long. I have a dimension with approx 77,000 members. On 9i, it took hours to load. On 10g 10.1.0.3 it loads in under 1 minute. You might want to open a TAR, the bug was something about one of the patch sets not being applied right
2) From a space standpoing, I wouldn't worry about this too much. When the AW wizard creates an "empty" workspace, it already has lots of items in it that support the metadata, etc. Also, there is the concept of "free pages" that get allocated but end up not being used (they are "temp")
To check this out, attach your AW and then fire up the OLAP worksheet. To see "free" pages vs. "used" pages, do the following:
show aw(pages)
show aw(freepages)
One last thing you can do, to see the size of all items in the AW:
attach AWname ro first
limit name to all
sort name d obj(disksize)
rpr w 40 obj(disksize)
This will show the "relative" size of the items, I think in "pages" (to see how big a page is just do a
show aw(pagesize)
Hope this helps!

Will the new Fire Fox run so well as the actua in my pc? I have an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.40 GHz 736 MB RAM and Windows XP Version 2002 Service Pack 2 and Fire Fox 3.6.24 or it will take my pc more ressources than currently?

I have an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.40 GHz 736 MB RAM and Windows XP Version 2002 Service Pack 2 and Fire Fox 3.6.24 or it will take my pc more ressources than currently?

Pay attention to what rkaufmann87 is saying, because I agree.
Chrome is very resource intensive.
It is possible you are running other memory intensive apps.
You have a lot of 3rd party additions loaded at boot time. Do you really need all of them? Even after you get rid of MacCleaner (as suggested by rkaufmann87).
Do you really need the seagate and WD drive software? The Mac is fairly good at accessing disks without 3rd party intervention.
Any of the 3rd party additions listed by EtreCheck that you do not need, you should consider uninstalling.
That fact that you have
171.19 GB Page-ins
in just about 4 days, says you have about 0.5megabytes per second. That is a huge load on your disk drive.
Either cut back on the RAM intensive apps, or get more RAM. At least 8GB, but if your Mac supports it, 16GB. Crucial.com and MacSales.com (OWC) are well respected by the long term forum contributes.

Why is the iTunes shop in Australia more expensive than the rest of the world?

Why is the iTunes shop in Australia more expensive than the rest of the world?

How do you know that there is not parity?
Do you know Apples expenses in each country?
Apple has to sell the music for the price that they can negotiate with the owners of the distribution rights in each country.
Perhaps those who own the rights to distribute the music in Australia simply negotiated a higher price.

Channels 2 and 3 100 times more sensitive than 0 and 1

I am using a PCI-6052e device with a SCXI 1000 chassie. The module is a SCXI 1121 with a SCXI 1321 terminal block.
I am using differential voltage. On the PCI device test using a DC power supply, I have good agreement between channels 0,1 and the indicator on the power supply. However, channels 2 and 3 show about 100 times more voltage than is applied. (ie .05volts on the power supply = 5 volts on channels 2 and 3)
what could possibly be going on? They should be identical.

There could be a few different things that may be happening. You mentioned that it is reading 5V. Is there a linear relationship between the input and what you read? For example if you increase the power supply to 0.07V does it read 7V or does it stay around 5V. If it reads 7V, make sure that you don't have any scales configured in the software when you read. Also check the gain jumpers on the module to see what configuration they are in. You can read more about the jumpers in the users manual on page 24.
SCXI-1121 Users Manual
http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/320426c.pdf
If the voltage doesn't change much it might be floating and not have a good connection to your power supply. In this case double check your pinouts and make sure you have the correct channels connected and that the terminal block is properly connected to the module with no bent pins. If you are still having issues, what behavior are you seeing on the other channels? Are they reading correctly or being multiplied?
Have a great day,
Brian P.

Web Process + Safari now hogging 50-75% more memory than Safari 5.0.5 did

Now that Apple has split Safari into two processes — Web Process (handles page loads and other traffic) and Safari (handles interface, bookmarks, history, etc) — these two processes together are using 50% to 75% more memory than Safari did before the upgrade to 5.1.
Three days ago, the most RAM I'd ever seen Safari hog (after several hours of surfing multiple tabs) was 1.1GB (still way more than it needed, once back down to 3 or 4 tabs).
Today, after surfing only an hour:
WebProcess 1.3GB
Safari 552MB
Anyone else seeing this? And anyone have ideas about limiting this memory hogging?

Well, to add a little more frustraton to this thread, a few weeks ago, when I first saw all the bugginess with this "update", I called Apple, was handed up to a higher-level tech person. He told me they were aware of all these problems, and promised me a fix would be released "ASAP". Well, a few weeks later, & of course, no fix. About a week ago, I called again, & was handed to a different higher-level guy, but this time he gave the same tired, "you should disable all your extensions & plug-ins" blah, blah, blah... And worse, he told me that he's heard nothing from users about issues with Safari!!!
Well, I then asked him if the problem really was one or some of the add-ons, why couldn't Apple just give us a list of at least some of the more popular ones that don't work. Why should ever single user have to go thru a one by one, trial & error, add one, then restart, then another, etc, since Apple could just do it, & let us know. Of course, that's never happened, so everyone has been trying anything they can, &/or resorting to using other browsers, & posting here & other places. I sure hope Apple quits stonewalling everyone, you would think they would address this, either by fixing it quickly, or at least letting everyone know they are aware of it, and that a fix will be coming, but pretending they no see, no hear nothing, and it's all in our heads, well, ...... it shucks.

Exchange 2013 - The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the configured threshold

Noticed at about noon that no emails had been received all day. Began to investigate and found that the MS Exchange Transport service had been set to deny email submission because it was using too much memory on the server (91%).
The error message makes me think that we may have been getting used by malware or something similar.“The Microsoft Exchange Transport service is rejecting message submissions because the service continues to consume more memory than the
configured threshold.”
There are also several warning messages that list particular IP addresses and say that a connection from that IP was denied because there were already the maximum number of connections (20).
From what I can tell, all of the IP addresses are from Taiwan.
The time period for which some emails may be missing is from close of business yesterday ( 4/3/2014) through about 12:45 today (4/4/2014).
From the time I spent reading and trying to figure out the error, I think we may need to readjust our throttling policies to prevent this from happening.
The exchange server is currently running at 90%+ CPU and 50%+ memory usage the majority of the time, and I’m not sure how to fix it.
Also, I cannot get into EMS I get a access denied message from the destination computer. (Exchange server) I want to get into there to change the throttling policy back to default, since we disabled it.
The Error reads:
The WinRM client cannot process the request. The WinRM client tried to use Kerberos authentication mechanism, but the destination computer <Exchange> returned an 'access denied' error. Change the configuration to allow Kerberos authentication
mechanism to be used or specify one of the authentication mechanism supported by the server. (How do I do this?) To use Kerberos, specify the local computer name as the remote destination. (I'm trying to use EMS while logged into the local Exchange server)
Also verify that the client computer and the destination computer are joined to a domain. (Exchange is on our domain, and the computer trying to connect is the same computer) To use basic, specify the local computer name as the remote destination, specify
Basic authentication and provide user mane and password. Possible authentication mechanisms reported by server.
At line:1 char:1
+ New-PSSession -ConnectionURI "$connectionUri" -ConfigurationName Microsoft.Excha ...
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : OpenError: (System.Manageme....RemoteRunspace:RemoteRunspace) [New-PSSession], PSRemotingTransportException + FullyQualifiedErrorId : AccessDenied,PSSessionOpenFailed
I assumed control of this exchange system already in place and I do not have much experience with exchange 2013 or server 2012. I do know 2008, but that doesn't help very much in this situation.
Recent changes to the system:
About three days ago we switch our sessions policy to allow many more connections, and I believe this caused the issue. This is what I changed it to:
Made the registry DWORD (32-bit) "Maximum Allowed Sessions Per User" and modified the value to 1000. Location of registry change @ HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeIS\ParametersSystem
I just changed it to 10 from the 1000. I'm hoping this solves this. So far no.
Also, I am not the best in the shell or command line interfaces. Any help would be wonderful!

Hi,
Yes, could be hardware performance issue. Try recycle the Transport process and see if the issue persists.
Thanks,
Simon Wu
TechNet Community Support

Firefox 7.0.1 consumes more memory than just FF 7.0!

You have got to be kidding me, Mozilla! You claimed that Firefox 7.0 would consume less memory than its predecessors. Well, FF7.0 does consume less memory, but when I upgraded to Firefox 7.0.1 and used the browser, it now consumes MORE memory than FF7.0 did before, and it is now at nearly 300,000 KB to nearly 500,000 KB! And that was on my first use! The second or other times I used it, Firefox 7.0.1 only consumes less memory, than the first time I used the browser! Mozilla, when will you wise up and fix the memory leaks again?

That is nothing, my Firefox 7.0.1 consumes 2.47GB (2 473 805 KB to be exact) ram with just 2 open tabs...
My system is with 8GB ram and I'm running out of memory...
Most of the time when I browse, the pages load slowly, firefox freezes during scrolling (and assortment of other problems)

Why is the black iPhone 4/4S more durable than the white?

I've owned both a black and a white 4S
The black was much more durable, mine flew out my hand and hit the tap, no damage just a big scratch to the back glass because thats where it hit, but it did make the back loose
I had a white, and it smashed the back like 2 inches off concrete, I'm serious.. That's how fragile they are...
I Now have A Galaxy S4
Why is the black iPhone more durable than the white? I never understood that...

Not sure what causes it, but here are your choices:
1) bring it to a 3rd party repair shop and see what they say
2) pay $149 for another replacement
3) do nothing
4) buy a new phone (iPhone or otherwise)
Up to you.

After restoring my phone and putting music back on it, the same music takes up much more memory

I recently had to restore my phone. I started to put the music back on it, and the files are taking up much more memory storage than before. It is the same music, though not as much as before, because it wont fit.

Hi miriamh!
I have an article here that addresses syncing with iTunes. This article can help you understand the syncing process a little more, and can be found here:
iOS: Syncing with iTunes
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1386
You may want to check to make sure you are syncing the exact same amount of music as before. You can also utilize one of the options for syncing that would downgrade higher bitrate format songs to a lower bitrate so that they take up less space on your phone. That option is visible here:
Thanks for using the Apple Support Communities!
Cheers,
Braden

Why is firefox 7b using a lot more memory and cpu on my computer?

I'm trying firefox 7 beta in a debian squeeze box. It is using a lot of RAM and CPU compared to previous releases of firefox(I've tried disabling all plugins and add-ons, not a big improvement). In the follow link here is a summary from about:memory, websites tabs opened at that time and the usage of % mem and cpu of my system: http://pastebin.com/8ji1gmLk
I'm using firefox on all my computers for a while now. So changing the browser is not an option for me now.
It did crash few times when loading a lot of tabs. Please let me know if there is another information that would be useful for fixing this. Thanks

Is it using a significant amount more resources than 6.0 did?
I noticed 6.0 is a VAST resource hog over 5.0 and earlier. It's a very bad flaw in the new version, and has a lot of people upset.
What has me curious is whether this is a new resource problem or whether it was present in 6.0 and you are just not noticing it.
One suggestion: Don't run BETA versions of ANY software on "all your machines". Not when rolling back the version is not an option. That's generally a bad idea, since beta versions are likely to have bugs.
With FF, now, I would never let it automatically update. I don't trust their new update policies, so I would suggest you turn "auto updates" to OFF, and do it manually, only after you hear the new release is stable, which we know 6.0 is NOT.

Time Machine takes up much more space than actually data backed up...

Every time I backup with time machine, it uses up gigs of space on my backup drive, regardless of increment or decrement of data on Mac. I could put 200 megs since last backup and TM eats 4 gigs. I don't change the file exclusion selections at all. Just curious if anyone knows why that is?

I find it hard to believe I added 4gb since last backup.
You'd be surprised. Sometimes you add more than you think. Any downloads, recently edited documents, etc all will add to the total. Plus system files such as browser history are updated and backed up as well. If it has been a few days since your last backup, I wouldn't worry. If this is happening ALL the time and you know that you have been barely using your computer, you may have a problem that needs to be further looked into.

Why acrobat 9 pro take 6 time more memory than acrobat 8 pro ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for