Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

I noticed that slideshow exports in AP3 seemed to take a long time and did a test with iMoive 09. I exported the exact same slideshow of 60 pictures and 1 song from both iMoive and AP3. The iMovie export was 5 times faster than the AP3 export.
Why is this and can anything be done to speedup AP3 slideshow exports?
I have a fairly quick Mac, 2 x 2.26 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 16 meg of ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870.
Any thoughts?
Ken

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Similar Messages

Why is wireless performance faster than wired WRT54G v8?

Why is wireless performance faster than wired WRT54G v8?

Have you checked the different wired computer..? or on all the wired computers are having same problem...?

Why does audio run faster than video after burning my iMovie project in iDVD?

I created a project in iMovie HD and shared it to iDVD 6. When I played the finished disc, I noticed that the audio ran much faster than the video. I rechecked my movie and audio clips in iMovie to make sure they were matched correctly, and I saw no problem there. I burned the disc again through iDVD and got the same problem when I played it in a DVD player.
I have never had this problem before and I've been working on dvd projects all week. I think the only difference with this movie project is that I had movie clip audio and background audio playing at the same time at some parts of the movie, but I don't know if that's the issue.
Any suggestions?

Hi
And just to add to OT-s brilliant suggestions - really - Do a Save as a DiskImage ! IMPORTANT !
• When free space goes down on the Start-Up hard disk to 5Gb or less - strange things occurs - Yes even audio out of sync - to not working DVD at all.
I secure a minimum of 25Gb free space when using SD-video to iDVD - if HD material I would guess 4-5 times more as it has to be re-calculated into SD and this needs space.
DVD - is as standard SD-Video (as old time CRT-TVs) - even if You use DVD-Studio Pro or iDVD or Roxio Toast™ - That's what it is and using HD material doesn't improve a bit (may be even give a lesser result)
Yours Bengt W

Why AWT apps are faster than Swing apps?

I have written applications using both AWT and Swing. While running under Windows, I feel that AWT apps are much faster and smoother. In contrast, Swing apps fare terribly. Regardless, I can not go back to AWT because of thier limited capabilities.
I love Java APIs, it is great for programmer. But what about the consumers? Consumers do not care whether it is written in Java or Visual C++?
I am having a mid-"programming" crisis. I do not want to but, but would be forced to use VC++ for desktop apps abandoning Java.
I would like to know if you are a serious desktop programmers, what is your motivation for using Java, not VC++ or something?
Thanks.

well, for me, it's that one it's Platform Independent. and that does come in handy when your work uses macs instead of normal PCs. Second, it's free to use, unlike VC++ and Pseudo Code (Visual Basic), you don't have to pay unbeleivably large sums of money to get a good compiler. And then there's the whole "Swings Apps are Slower", yes they are, however, if you program them write, they only take a while to initialize, once that is done they run as fast as any Native Program unless you have a tremendous amount of calculations and dynamic generation of components. And also the no Excecutables, true, and... not true, creating a Jar File is almost the same as making a making an EXE, only Jar Files are... platform independent.... and unlike C++ which gives you enough rope to run around the world three times, jump over the moon and hang yourself for actually using it, Java is a clean programming language, not a whole lot of those nasty characters and styles that ugly up your code. at least these are the reasons why i pick Java as the language to come out on top of all others.

Why Foxit reader is faster than Adobe Acrobat ?

I see Foxit open faster pdfs than Adobe, do you have the same better open time ?

What version of Adobe Acrobat? Or is it the free Adobe Reader?

Macbook is faster than my Macbook Pro?

I did a quick test running the Universal Binary of Firefox and surfing a few sites.
Why is my Macbook faster than my MBP? Both have the same 2 GHz core clock.

It could be the power management system. I don't know the numbers but if you download CoreDuoTemp. you will see when you are just woing a little web surfing the mhz are not always at 2.0ghz. Do a test see what the mhz are doing the same task on both.

Why is the internet faster on my 3-year-old Macbook Pro than on my iPad???

Though I love my iPad, I am puzzled why surfing the web is so much slower on the iPad than on my three-year-old MacBook Pro. I have a cable modem and an airport extreme. Loading the same pages on Safari, the MacBook is much faster than the iPad. Is this normal? Could something be slowing down the connection to the iPad?
Thanks!
Steven

Even a 3 year old MacBook has 4 times the CPU power and about ten times the RAM of an iPad.
You can run speed tests on the iPad and make sure that you don't have a connection problem.

Why full index scan is faster than full table scan?

Hi friends,
In the where clause of a query,if we give a column that contains index on it,then oracle uses index to search data rather than a TABLE ACCESS FULL Operation.
Why index searching is faster?

Sometimes it is faster to use index and sometimes it is faster to use full table scan. If your statistics are up to date Oracle is far more likely to get it right. If the query can be satisfied entirely from the index, then an index scan will almost always be faster as there are fewer blocks to read in the index than there would be if the table itself were scanned. However if the query must extract data from the table when that data is not in te index, then the index scan will be faster only if a small percentage of the rows are to be returned. Consiter the case of an index where 40% of the rows are returned. Assume the index values are distributed evenly among the data blocks. Assume 10 rows will fit in each data block thus 4 of the 10 rows will match the condition. Then the average datablock will be fetched 4 times since most of the time adjacent index entries will not be in the same block. The number of single datablock fetches will be about 4 times the number of datablocks. Compare this to a full table scan that does multiblock reads. Far fewer reads are required to read the entire table. Though it depends on the number of rows per block, a general rule is any query returning more than about 10% of a table is faster NOT using an index.

Why is JVM faster than CLR?

hi
i wrote a N-body algorithm in both Java and C# (shown below). i executed it using .NET CLR and JDK1.4.1. in JDK it is twice as fast as .NET (on win2000). now i am trying to find out why is it so??
the interesting thing is that i ran some other algorithms like FFT and graph alogrithms, and they are faster in .NET. so i want to find is there some operation in the below algorithm that is making it run faster in JDK.
in general, what can the possible reasons be for JVM to run faster than CLR?
thanks
double G = 6.6726E-11;
double difference = 0.0;
for(int i=0; i<numBodies; i++)
     accelarations[i] = 0.0;
     for(int j=0; j<numBodies; j++)
          if(i != j)
          difference = radii[i] - radii[j];
          if(difference != 0)
          accelarations[i] += masses/(Math.pow(difference, 2));
     accelarations[i] *= G;

Interesting N-Body problem that treats accelerations as scalars.
Anyway, if there is no optimisation for small integer powers in the Math.pow() method, then I'd expect almost all the time is used there or in its equivalent in .NET. Hardly a meaningful test of relative performance.
Try using (difference * difference) instead.
Sylvia.

Why is my 2008 Macbook faster than my 2012 MacBook Pro?

I got a basic, 13Inch Macbook back in 2008. It has been used, nonstop, for the past almost 5 yrs since i bought it. I never turn it off, it always gets used on a bed/couch, tonnes of windows/programs constantly open. Its full of crappy DLed programs, movies, music and whatnot, has only recently been updated to 10.6 OS X. Its dying, the charger barely works, and it over heats and blacksout sometimes and yet, it runs so much faster than my end of 2012 13in MacBook Pro, 2.9GHz model. Slower to the point that i still use my old one and let Hubby take the new one to the Construction site with him. Ive used it maybe once or twice since i bought it in November. Booting up is slower, general use is slow, opening programs is slower. And its got almost nothing on it!
Just wondering why its slower when its newer and supposedly better? I thought i was upgrading?

Wipe the drive on the new system and Reinstall OS X. Factory installs aren't all they are supposed to be. Sometimes corrupted from the Get Go.
Only by wiping the drive and doing a Fresh Clean Install will you know if your slowness was caused by some type of OS corruption or posibly a hardware problem.
Also you don't mention what RPM the drive is in your older Mac but Apple puts really Slow 5400RMP drives in the newer models by default. These Slow 5400RPM drives will slow down the whole system. Slow to boot. Slow to load programs and files into those programs and slow to save back to the drive. Also OS X is constantly writing to and reading from the hard drive so a slower drive will again slow down the whole system.
If it is less then 14 days old you can return it No Questions Asked for a full refund and then maybe try another, different, machine.

Why would oracle 9i drivers faster than oracle 10g drivers against a 10g?

I'm skeptical of the claim but we have a system at work and tests have been done that apparently is showing that the older oracle 9i thin jdbc driver is performing a fetch faster than the 10g driver. This for a query that is currently doing a full table scan.
Is there a default setting in 10g vs 9i that can explain why the perceived query performance is faster with the older thin driver?

steffi2 wrote:
What was observed was that when they started using the old Oracle 8.1.7 8i client jar against this 10g data the actual execution plan changed dramatically to use indexes where was previously it was not doing so and it was doing a full tablescan.
Why would the introduction of the old 8i jar have this affect?Maybe the test is flawed. For example one test was run with the network was loaded while the other wasn't. Or different connection parameters.
That said I believe somewhere the claim has been made that Oracle drivers changed from one API to another somewhat recently. Thus that could be the source.
Or maybe something to do with hints.

Why is kernel-2.6.9 (OEL-4) faster than kernel-2.6.18 (OEL-5) ?

Hi,
as long as RHEL-5 and then OEL-5 have been released, I have been wondering why my own programs, compiled and run on RHEL-5/OEL-5, are slower than the same programs compiled and run on RHEL-4/OEL-4 on the same machine. This is really barmy since gcc-4.1, shipped with RHEL-5/OEL-5, is very aggressive compiler and produces faster binary code than gcc-3.4.6, shipped with RHEL-4/OEL-4. I verified this hundred times testing both compilers on RHEL-4/OEL-4 and RHEL-5/OEL-5. The 4.1 compiler always produces faster executable on the same OS.
The problem is obviously in kernel-2.6.18. There is something in the kernel (maybe scheduler?) that slows down the execution of programs. But what? I experimented with changing various kernel boot parameters (eg "acpi=off" etc), even tried to recompile the kernel many times with various combinations of config parameters, and nothing helps. Thus, I'm still wondering whether the problem is solvable by disabling one or more config parameters and recompiling the kernel, or is deeply embedded in the main kernel code.
Is there anybody in this forum who experienced the same, say running OEL-4 before migrating to OEL-5?
Here are two examples showing different execution times on OEL-4.5 (kernel-2.6.9-55.0.5.0.1.EL.i686, gcc-3.4.6-8.0.1) and OEL-5 (kernel-2.6.18-8.1.10.0.1.el5, gcc-4.1.1-52.el5.2). The first example is trivial but very sensitive to overal system load and kernel version. The second example is "Sieve of Eratosthenes" - the program for finding prime numbers (CPU bound).
EXAMPLE 1.
/* Simle program for text screen console */
/* very sensitive to overall system load */
/* and kernel version                     */
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
    register int i;
    for(i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
     printf(" %d ", i);
    return 0;
/* end of program */
$ gcc -O2 -o example1 -s example1.c
$ time ./example1The average execution times on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are as follow:
Mode      OEL-4.5         OEL-5
real      0m3.141s        0m4.931s
user      0m0.394s        0m0.366s
sys       0m2.747s        0m4.563s
----------------------------------As we can see, the program on the same machine, compiled and run on OEL-4.5 (gcc-3.4.6 and kernel-2.6.9) is 57% faster than the same program compiled and run on OEL-5 (gcc-4.1.1 and kernel-2.6.18), although gcc-4.1.1 produces much faster binary code. Since the times the process spent in user mode are almost equal on both OS, the whole difference is due to the time the process spent in kernel mode. Note that kernel mode (sys) is taking 66% more time on OEL-5. It tells me that "something" in the kernel-2.6.18 slows down the execution of the program.
In the second example OEL-4.5 is also faster than OEL-5, but the differences in execution times are not so drastic as in the first example.
EXAMPLE 2.
/*           Sieve of Eratosthenes           */
#define GNUSOURCE
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define MAX_PRIME_AREA 100000
#define REPEAT_LOOP 10000
int main(void)
    int prime, composite, count;
    char *sieve_array;
    if ((sieve_array = (char *) malloc( (size_t) (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1))) == NULL)
     fprintf(stderr,"Memory block too big!\nMemory allocation failed!\a\n");
     exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    for(count = 0; count < REPEAT_LOOP; count++)
     for(prime = 0; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime++)
             *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) '\0';
     for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
         if (! *(sieve_array + prime) )
          *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) 'P'; /* offset prime is a prime */
             for(composite = (2 * prime); composite < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); composite += prime)
              *(sieve_array + composite) = (char) 'X'; /* offset composite is a composite */
        /* DO NOT COMPILE FOR TEST !!!
        fprintf(stdout, "\n%d\n", 2);
        for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
            if ( *(sieve_array + prime) == 'P' )
                fprintf(stdout, "%d\n", prime);
    free(sieve_array);
    return 0;
/* End of Sieve of Eratosthenes */The average execution times on the same machine on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are:
MAX_PRIME_AREA     Mode         OEL-4.5         OEL-5
                   real         0m9.196s        0m10.531s
   100000          user         0m9.189s        0m10.478s
                   sys          0m0.002s        0m0.010s
                   real         0m20.264s       0m21.532s
   200000          user         0m20.233s       0m21.490s
                   sys          0m0.020s        0m0.025s
                   real         0m30.722s       0m33.502s
   300000          user         0m30.684s       0m33.456s
                   sys          0m0.024s        0m0.032s
                   real         1m10.163s       1m15.215s
   400000          user         1m10.087s       1m14.704s
                   sys          0m0.075s        0m0.079s
---------------------------------------------------------Does this ring a bell with anyone? Any clue why?
N.J.

An hour? Hard to believe or is your hardware that
old?An hour? That's a super good time for 3 kernel
packages (i686, xen and PAE) with all modules, plus 3
kernel-devel packages, plus debuginfo package of
150-580 MB where smart people at Red Hat decided to
put uncompressed vmlinux image which is necessary for
kernel profiling and debugging. Ah, I had a different kernel make process in mind.
Oracle doesn't ship
debuginfo package. Of course, this is when I build a
"complete suite" of kernel rpm packages using
unmodified spec file. And, to be honest, it takes
much more than an hour, maybe even two hours. Another
thing is compiling single i686 kernel without
building a package. But it also takes at least half
an hour. Anyway the time significantly depends on how
many modules are selected to be built in.That what I was looking for.
What's your time to build a single kernel (which
version?) with default set of modules ? On which
hardware ? I've only access to a root server right now, which is
cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep "model name"
model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+with about 2GB of RAM
free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2024       1957         67          0        368       1291
-/+ buffers/cache:        297       1727
Swap:         3827         24       3803under
uname -a
Linux base 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 #5 PREEMPT Mon Sep 10 22:32:37 CEST 2007 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/LinuxThis is what i did
cd /usr/src/linux
make clean
time nice -n 19 genkernel --lvm2 --makeopts="-j2" --oldconfig all
* Running with options: --lvm2 --makeopts=-j2 --oldconfig all
* Linux Kernel 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 for x86...*
mount: /boot mounted successfully!
* config: >> Running oldconfig...
* config: --no-clean is enabled; leaving the .config alone.
*         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 bzImage...
*         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 modules......
real    17m30.582s
user    16m8.480s
sys     1m9.000sWhat could helped here was that I've switched off some modules and (maybe) the use of ccache.
C.

CTAS is over x10 faster than it's select statement, why?

Hi gurus -
Oracle 11gR2
Exadata
CREATE TABLE AS SELECT .......................... FROM................. runs over 10 times faster than just the SELECT stmt from the CTAS.
Why and how CTAS is faster than it's SELECT stmt?
Thanks,
Prakash

No it's not guessing game. Here is my query with elapsed time,
SELECT CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE,
SUM (CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND,
SUM (CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND
FROM CONTRACTOR_TIME V -- Contractor view
WHERE ORG IN (23245,33456)
GROUP BY
CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE;
--Elapsed : 30 minutes
CREATE TABLE rslt AS
SELECT CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE,
SUM (CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND,
SUM (CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND
FROM CONTRACTOR_TIME V -- Contractor view
WHERE ORG IN (23245,33456)
GROUP BY
CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE;
--Elapsed: 3 mins

Why is Firefox Developer more stable and faster than regular Firefox?

So, I've have some great experiences with regular Firefox. It works great, nice themes, good plugins, security etc., but there's one thing that bothers me of Firefox on EVERY computer on EVERY operating system. Whenever I install Firefox, it is already slow, it stutters sometimes and sometimes it freezes. And it's not only my problem, many of my friends and classmates are using Chrome at this moment, because they complain about speed of Firefox. Now, for me that's not problem, I'm not patient person, but surely it is browser that will protect my privacy as opposed to Chrome.
Recently, somewhere, I saw download link saying something like "Mozilla Developer, for people like you", or something alike, I installed it and man, that browser is like 10x faster than regular Firefox AND Chrome AND Safari, I mean, this speed is outrageous! It's great, no sarcasm!
I don't get it, why is regular Firefox so slow and Firefox Developer so frickin' fast? Why? Can you maybe base your next Firefox update to Firefox Developer?
Sincerely Mozilla Firefox Developer lover. *muah*

@Tyler Downer Oke, good to hear it's next release of Firefox. But my profile isn't full, I don't really log in, totally fresh install of Firefox are mostly really sluggish. Mozilla really outdid themselves in speed and stability!! Great! A++ Mozilla!

Ubuntu is booting up faster than Arch on my computer why would that be

So after about a year with ubuntu and just trying out different distros i went towards a challenge, Arch. Well it was for me at the time but after installing arch and learning how it all got built i am very content with this new distro for me. My primary objective was to have a really fast distro, thus Arch but since i am a noob for now I dont know all of the ins and outs of it yet. Right now Ubuntu boots up WAY faster than Arch does on my desktop and I would like to know why and how i can change that.

Arch doesn't do anything to increase boot time other than the ability to background some daemons on startup. There are initscript replacements like quick-init or finit-arc but in my experience they are a little flaky.
Ubuntu, IIRC, uses upstart which does some things (I don't know) to help increase boot time. You can try installing upstart on Arch if you want http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24506

Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for