Why is New to Java so much faster than Java Programming?

It feels like the New to Java server is at my neighbor's house, and Java Programming is on Neptune. What gives? It always takes like 10 seconds to load the Java Programming board.

I've noticed that, too. I've attributed it to message volume, since there are so many more messages under that category.
Maybe the database doesn't have an index, or perhaps they bring back LOTS of entries and cache them. Who knows?
%

Similar Messages

Why is the Nightly build so much faster and has better looking features than the final Firefox product ??

The Nightly build is so much faster than Firefox, and the download feature is much better than the download feature in Firefox.

The Nightly build (22.0a1) is updated daily and has the latest code fixes and thus may be unstable.<br />
This version is meant for experienced testers only to check out new code and to see if it if working properly before it will be added to a release version, so it may be faster to some extend.
You should always install such an alpha (Nightly or Aurora) or beta release alongside of a the current release in case of problems (a lot of times websites may be broken).
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Testing_pre-release_versions
*http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/

Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

Hey boys and girls,
I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
Thanks for any help in advance.
Ugli
PB Bronze Mac OS X (10.3.9)

ugli:
Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
Good luck in your quest.
cornelius
PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Web Report - ABAP Vs JAVA engine - ABAP 10 times faster than JAVA

Guys,
I want to share what we found in our project and see if any of you have insights
into our findings.We are on NW2004S SP14 and we are moving to SP15 in a couple of weeks.We created query, developed WAD for it and executing the WAD takes for this query takes 22 secs (Vs 2 secs using ABAP) the query output has 1 million records and most of the actions we take from that point on like right click on account takes 20 secs (Vs 0 secs/instant using ABAP) , drilldown to level 4 of account hierarchy takes 58 secs (Vs 5 secs using ABAP), drilldown on cost center level 6 takes 42 secs (Vs 4 secs using ABAP), , right click on cost center takes 32 secs (Vs 3 secs using ABAP), ..etc.
Basically every action we take in the JAVA report takes an average of 28 secs.There are 9 aggregates built on the cube that are barely hit by this query but the same query performing same actions with same selections hit the aggregates many many times.The questions I have is why is ABAP so fast compared to JAVA ? What is true explanation behind this behavior ? What are the dis-advantages by using ABAP engine ? Users are loving the performance and features of ABAP while they weren't really on board with the original JAVA report (as it was slow). ABAP is sure enough 10 times faster than JAVA. Query/Query Properties are exactly the same in ABAP and JAVA.Please explain.
Cheers
RT

Hi All,
Thanks to all you for your responses. I appreciate your time for going through my questions and coming forward to express your views.
However, I was looking for more specific "factual" answers. My question is "What does a client miss if they opt to install only ABAP based BI 7.0, as against JAVA Based BI 7.0"
thanks again.
Naga

3G much faster than WiFi now?

Ever since I purchased the 3G iPhone my 3G performance is MUCH faster than my WiFi connection. My old iPhone was very fast on my WiFi connection but the new 3G iPhone is MUCH slower using the WiFi connection. It's so much slower that I have permanently turned WiFi OFF. My WiFi network is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the phone. I thought it would get better with the latest update but it hasn't. Anyone else experiencing this??

Here are the results from my speed tests.
3G TEST:
262 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
317 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
572 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
293 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
589 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 406kbps
WiFi TEST:
1763kbps (initial latency probe is 35976ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1543kbps (initial latency probe is 36095ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2239kbps (initial latency probe is 441ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
CRASH (Had to restart Safari)
1780kbps (initial latency probe is 22810ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
1656kbps (initial latency probe is 29863ms, 28364ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
2084kbps (initial latency probe is 411ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
AVERAGE SPEED IS 1844kbps
The problem with my WiFi is the initial connection takes forever. Once it gets going it is much faster. Looks like I have massive turbo lag. Since the initial WiFi ping takes longer than the entire 10 pings of the 3G test the WiFi connection “appears” much slower. Not good.
Anyone have any idea how I can fix this? Should I try and return the phone?

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

why are the photos i print much darker than the monitor image?

Please read this post then provide some details. What printer model? What operating system? What program are you printing from?
Some programs such as Photoshop give the option to print to CMYK or sRGB color spaces. Even though the printer uses CMYK inks the driver is expecting sRGB data. If CMYK is selected the prints will be much too dark.
Another thing to check is the media type. If you are printing on plain paper and have seelcted Photo paper the prints have too much ink.
Bob Headrick, HP Expert
I am not an employee of HP, I am a volunteer posting here on my own time.
If your problem is solved please click the "Accept as Solution" button ------------V
If my answer was helpful please click the "Thumbs Up" to say "Thank You"--V

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time". It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
HTH

Why is Chrome so much faster than Safari?

I'm an Apple and Safari lover, but love goes only so far. I have tried everything with Safari in Yosemite, but it's really in a sad state when it won't even open my Google account page, or my own website. Sadly, I have found so many pages that either load so slowly that I give up, or don't open at all in Safari, yet Chrome always works, and fast. In fact, Firefox and Opera, both of which I have never used regularly are much better than Safari right now.
Does anyone have a clue as to why Safari has turned into such a poor browser in Yosemite? But please don't suggest I go to safe mode. I only want a decent browser, which I would prefer was Safari and not Chrome, but I do not want to deconstruct or rebuild my Macbook Air OS installation.

Funny. I'm finding exactly the opposite to be true. I've used Chrome since it came out, and it used to be far superior to Safari. Lately I find it to be very buggy--lots of jittery, time consuming page loads and crashes. Frustrated, I imported all of my stuff to Safari where loading times, scrolling, and navigation are like butter. No crashes and no loading issues on my MB Pro. So far so good.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the "baggage" I developed on Chrome over the years. I kept things pretty tidy--purging history, cookies, etc-- but it still just kept getting worse.
I guess Firefox is an option, but one thing is certain: I will not be returning to IE ****.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Export movie is slow... but why Send to Compressor is so much faster!)

Hi,
I have a question. I had a about 60 seconds long animation to render and as usual, I just whent to Share > Export Movie and wondered how on earth it can take more than 30 minutes to render... After 20 minutes and estimate time was still rising, I just clicked cancel.
Then, for some reason I clicked Send to Compressor and suprized how much faster it rendered! Same file, same settings and same output took only 6 minutes!!! Why???

Good question... I didn't think of that. I have a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, both made by Apple. My friend has a wired keyboard and mouse, plus an external hard drive. I am using wireless internet and my router is about two feet from my computer, and my friend is using wired internet. He has DSL, I have cable. He has a printer connected, and I have one connected to my router.
I know some of those details may be irrelevant... If you need any more information, just ask.

3.1.3 is much faster than 4.0 why?

I have conducted several speed tests. Its very disappointing. The only time 4.0 is faster is when multitasking and when the Apps are already open and eating battery. Why is 4.0 firmware soooo much slower?

kesajen wrote:
Does anyone know how to go back to 3.1.3? I have 16GB 3GS, running iOS4, and my phone runs VERY slow!! It's so frustrating. I don't really care about multi tasking, or any other goodie that came with 4. I want to go back to the old OS.
Any help out there?
I know how but can't say

Calling a library function node much faster than labview code?

Hi, I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers. A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution. You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it. For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc.
Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data. I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days. So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function. It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute. I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?
Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi. Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one. With say 2million points, the fit would take too long. The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time. Is labview really that slow?
So, my questions are... if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster? Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure? Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?
I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.
I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look. There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote. Thanks for any help.
Attachments:
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi ‏627 KB

Hi,
The C routine that AutoCorrelation.vi is using is probably a higly optimised routine. If you write a routine in LabVIEW, it should be less then 15% slower. But you'd have to know all ins and outs of LabVIEW. How data is handled, when memory is allocated, etc. Also note that the AutoCorrelation.vi has years of engineering behind it, and probably multiple programmers.
It might even be possible that the c code uses an algorithmic improvement, like the Fast Fourier Transform improves speed on the Fourier Transform. I think the autocorrelation can be done using FFT, but that isn't my thing, so I'm not sure.
For a fair comparation, posting the code in this forum was a good idea. I'm sure together we can get it to 115% or less of the C variant. (15/115 is just a guess, btw)
I'm still using LV7.1 for client compatibility, so I'll look at the code later.
Regards,
Wiebe.
"dakeddie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Hi,  I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers.  A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution.  You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it.  For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc. Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data.  I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days.  So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function.  It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute.  I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi.  Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one.  With say 2million points, the fit would take too long.  The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time.  Is labview really that slow?So, my questions are...  if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster?  Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure?  Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look.  There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote.  Thanks for any help.
MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi:
http://forums.ni.com/attachments/ni/170/185730/1/MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi

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!

Why is volume of Spotify so much lower than all other apps?

So I've just installed the Spotify app on my Sony z3 and the volume is so much lower than all the other audio out puts.. I have no issue listening to audio normally via the normal music player but with Spotify I have to put volume on max and muck about with equaliser... I'm pretty disappointed about this and if there is no solution I doubt I'll continue beyond the trial as is not fit for purpose as it is.. And help is appreciated.

Yeah it also gives the illusion of crappy sound because you can't hear everything. People think it's muffled because it can't play as loud. I even analyzed the audio to see how it compared to other services by normalizing the audio. Everything sounded the same but at the regular volume it sounds muffled. I really wish they would raise the default volume.

Why is New to Java so much faster than Java Programming?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for