Why is running Elements 8 slower on Windows 7 than XP?

I am afraid this is query is a bit long, but I have tried to provide all the
info I can ....
THE PROBLEM
My old PC died, so I bought a new PC to improve my video processing speed, and also move off Windows XP.
- I installed the same copy of Adobe Premiere Elements 8 on both PCs.
- I applied no updates (on either machine) as the original versions works fine (on XP - why fix something that isn't broken)
- I changed the preferences to stop background rendering (due to data volumes -
same on old PC).
- I then copied the project file (.prel) from the old PC to the new.
Having set up the new PC, I carried out a benchmark test in Premiere Elements 8.0 converting the same 4-hour long HD file from M2TS to MPG on both PCs.
It was 4 times slower on the new PC !!!!
I then tried out another video conversion program (to demux MPG files so that they can be edited in Premiere) and that was 30% faster on the new PC.
In the Premier test the original file was on a 6GB/s 3TB disk drive with the output file on a 6GB/s 2TB drive (which also has the Windows system and Adobe cache files).
- Both processes ran identically without errors. In fact the output files were almost identical (one was 12 685 358 KB, the other 12 658 402 KB). I ran MediaInfo on both output files and it summarised them as identical in terms of codecs, size, etc, etc.
- On the old PC, CPU utilisation is usually around 90%, on the new one it is closer to 50%.
- Disk and memory utilisation are not limiting factors.
Can anyone help me finding out why the new PC is so much slower than the old?
SPECIFICATIONS
OLD PC
ASUS P8Z68-V
INTEL CORE I5 2500K 3.30GHZ
2 x KINGSTON 4096MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 1GB
1 x 2 TB disks with 4k sectors
4 x 3 TB disks with 4k sectors (each with 2 partitions)
Windows XP Pro SP3
NEW PC
ASUS P8H77V
INTEL I7 3770 3.4GHZ
2 x KINGSTON 4096MB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 1GB
1 x 2 TB disks with 4k sectors
4 x 3 TB disks with 64k sectors
Windows 7 Pro
BACKGROUND
I have a very specific use of Premiere (for research purposes):
- I have 2 HD video Sony XDR160E camcorders monitoring bird nests 13 hours per day.
- Each camera generates 160 GB data per day on its internal HD.
- File sizes range from 20 GB (smallest) to 160 GB.
- I download the files from the camera to disk using the cameras download facility.
It is then that I use Premiere.
- I open a project that has the exact specs of the camera's output.
- I open the M2TS file in Premiere, drag it onto the sceneline.
- I do not view the file but immediately share it using a preset that matches the requirements of my MVIX PVR.
This bit is not relevant to the problem per se, but provides background info:
- I then copy the file onto the PVR decoder.
- I view the file through an MVIX PVR which allows viewing at 32x speed with minimal data loss.
- I will then identify activity periods (which may be only 5 minutes per day).
- I use the camera's editor to extract the relevant clips keeping all the camera metadata intact.
- After that I may use Premiere again to create illustrative montages.
CONCLUSION
Does anyone have a clue as to why I am having this problem? (it is not an error per se)
- The obvious differences are the operating system, the graphics card and the disk allocation unit size
- It may well NOT be a Premiere issue, it may be Windows 7 Pro that is causing the problem.
- I assume that the graphics card is irrelevant as I never actually view the video in Premiere (in this scenario)
- Could it be that Adobe cannot handle the 64k disk allocation size?
- Is there some special setting in Windows 7 that I need to enable that wasn't required in Windows XP?
- Is there some special setting in Adobe that I need to enable when running in a 64-bit environment?
Or is there something else I am missing?
Any help would be really appreciated - it could take weeks to try out all the various combinations to identify the problem.
Giles

Steve
Thanx for your insights. I do not have the disks partitioned (except the system disk, I always like to keep the system files separated from the 'user' files to make backups simpler).
I suspect you are right that upgrading to 11 would speed things up, but I still suspect there is something more fundamentally wrong in my Windows 7 set-up - my guess is that upgrading to 11 might double the speed of processing - but that would still leave it 50% slower than on the old machine.
My first step will be to run all the patches on 8 - but not for a few days. We are expecting 3 or 4 days of thunderstorms (normal for this time of year in South Africa) and my UPS hasn't the battery life to keep going during an upgrade cycle.
Giles

Similar Messages

I am running Elements 11 on Windows 8. When I use the healing tool, the entire image moves with the cursor. How do I fix??? Thanks!

I am running Elements 11 on Windows 8. When I use the healing tool, the entire image moves with the cursor. How do I fix??? Thanks!

With the Healing Brush Tool selected, in the Tool Options, click on Clone Overlay and check Clipped.

Can i run elements 13 with windows vista

is anyone running elements 13 with windows vista?

Adobe Photoshop Elements 13 for Mac, Windows - System requirements
Only Windows 7 or Windows 8.

A SQL tuning issue-sql runs much slower in test than in production?

Hi Buddies,
I am working on a sql tuning issue. A sql runs much slower in test than in production.
I compared the two explain plans in test and production
seems in test, CBO refuses to use index SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_I2.
we rebuile it and re-gether that index statistcs. run, still slow..
I compared the init.ora parameters like hash_area_size, sort_area_size in test, they are same as production.
I wonder if any expert friend can show some light.
in production,
SQL> set autotrace traceonly
SQL> SELECT rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd,
2 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd,
3 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd,
4 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id,
5 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.ntrl_accnt_cd,
6 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.gnrl_ldgr_chrt_of_accnt_nm,
7 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.lgl_entty_brnch_cd,
8 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.crprt_melob_cd AS corp_mlb_cd,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd, SUM (amt) AS amount
9 10 FROM rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw
11 WHERE rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd = '092008'
12 AND rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id = 'RCS0002100'
13 AND rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd = 'SAFF01'
14 GROUP BY rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd,
15 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd,
16 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd,
17 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id,
18 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.ntrl_accnt_cd,
19 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.gnrl_ldgr_chrt_of_accnt_nm,
20 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.lgl_entty_brnch_cd,
21 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.crprt_melob_cd,
22 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd;
491 rows selected.
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=130605 Card=218764 B
ytes=16407300)
1 0 SORT (GROUP BY) (Cost=130605 Card=218764 Bytes=16407300)
2 1 VIEW OF 'RPT_HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_VW' (Cost=129217 Ca
rd=218764 Bytes=16407300)
3 2 SORT (UNIQUE) (Cost=129217 Card=218764 Bytes=35877296)
4 3 UNION-ALL
5 4 HASH JOIN (Cost=61901 Card=109382 Bytes=17719884)
6 5 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'GNRL_LDGR_CHRT_OF_ACCNT'
(Cost=2 Card=111 Bytes=3774)
7 5 HASH JOIN (Cost=61897 Card=109382 Bytes=14000896
8 7 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SUBLEDGER_CHART_OF_ACC
OUNT' (Cost=2 Card=57 Bytes=1881)
9 7 HASH JOIN (Cost=61893 Card=109382 Bytes=103912
90)
10 9 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_LINE' (Cost=
34 Card=4282 Bytes=132742)
11 9 HASH JOIN (Cost=61833 Card=109390 Bytes=7000
960)
12 11 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'SUBLEDGE
R_ENTRY' (Cost=42958 Card=82076 Bytes=3611344)
13 12 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_I
2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1069 Card=328303)
14 11 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_
LINK' (Cost=14314 Card=9235474 Bytes=184709480)
15 4 HASH JOIN (Cost=61907 Card=109382 Bytes=18157412)
16 15 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'GNRL_LDGR_CHRT_OF_ACCNT'
(Cost=2 Card=111 Bytes=3774)
17 15 HASH JOIN (Cost=61903 Card=109382 Bytes=14438424
18 17 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SUBLEDGER_CHART_OF_ACC
OUNT' (Cost=2 Card=57 Bytes=1881)
19 17 HASH JOIN (Cost=61899 Card=109382 Bytes=108288
18)
20 19 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_LINE' (Cost=
34 Card=4282 Bytes=132742)
21 19 HASH JOIN (Cost=61838 Card=109390 Bytes=7438
520)
22 21 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'SUBLEDGE
R_ENTRY' (Cost=42958 Card=82076 Bytes=3939648)
23 22 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_I
2' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=1069 Card=328303)
24 21 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_
LINK' (Cost=14314 Card=9235474 Bytes=184709480)
Statistics
25 recursive calls
18 db block gets
343266 consistent gets
370353 physical reads
0 redo size
15051 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
1007 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
34 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
1 sorts (memory)
1 sorts (disk)
491 rows processed
in test
SQL> set autotrace traceonly
SQL> SELECT rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd,
2 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd,
3 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd,
4 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id,
5 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.ntrl_accnt_cd,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.gnrl_ldgr_chrt_of_accnt_nm,
6 7 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.lgl_entty_brnch_cd,
8 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.crprt_melob_cd AS corp_mlb_cd,
9 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd, SUM (amt) AS amount
10 FROM rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw
11 WHERE rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd = '092008'
12 AND rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id = 'RCS0002100'
AND rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd = 'SAFF01'
13 14 GROUP BY rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd,
15 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.bkng_prd,
16 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.systm_afflt_cd,
17 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.jrnl_id,
18 rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.ntrl_accnt_cd,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.gnrl_ldgr_chrt_of_accnt_nm,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.lgl_entty_brnch_cd,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.crprt_melob_cd,
rpt_horizon_subledger_entry_vw.onst_offst_cd; 19 20 21 22
no rows selected
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=CHOOSE (Cost=92944 Card=708 Bytes
=53100)
1 0 SORT (GROUP BY) (Cost=92944 Card=708 Bytes=53100)
2 1 VIEW OF 'RPT_HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_VW' (Cost=92937 Car
d=708 Bytes=53100)
3 2 SORT (UNIQUE) (Cost=92937 Card=708 Bytes=124962)
4 3 UNION-ALL
5 4 HASH JOIN (Cost=46456 Card=354 Bytes=60180)
6 5 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SUBLEDGER_CHART_OF_ACCOU
NT' (Cost=2 Card=57 Bytes=1881)
7 5 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=46453 Card=354 Bytes=48498)
8 7 HASH JOIN (Cost=11065 Card=17694 Bytes=1362438
9 8 HASH JOIN (Cost=27 Card=87 Bytes=5133)
10 9 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_LINE' (Cos
t=24 Card=87 Bytes=2175)
11 9 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'GNRL_LDGR_CHRT_OF_
ACCNT' (Cost=2 Card=111 Bytes=3774)
12 8 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_LI
NK' (Cost=11037 Card=142561 Bytes=2566098)
13 7 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'SUBLEDGER_EN
TRY' (Cost=2 Card=1 Bytes=60)
14 13 INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_PK'
(UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=1)
15 4 HASH JOIN (Cost=46456 Card=354 Bytes=64782)
16 15 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'SUBLEDGER_CHART_OF_ACCOU
NT' (Cost=2 Card=57 Bytes=1881)
17 15 NESTED LOOPS (Cost=46453 Card=354 Bytes=53100)
18 17 HASH JOIN (Cost=11065 Card=17694 Bytes=1362438
19 18 HASH JOIN (Cost=27 Card=87 Bytes=5133)
20 19 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_LINE' (Cos
t=24 Card=87 Bytes=2175)
21 19 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'GNRL_LDGR_CHRT_OF_
ACCNT' (Cost=2 Card=111 Bytes=3774)
22 18 TABLE ACCESS (FULL) OF 'HORIZON_SUBLEDGER_LI
NK' (Cost=11037 Card=142561 Bytes=2566098)
23 17 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'SUBLEDGER_EN
TRY' (Cost=2 Card=1 Bytes=73)
24 23 INDEX (UNIQUE SCAN) OF 'SUBLEDGER_ENTRY_PK'
(UNIQUE) (Cost=1 Card=1)
Statistics
1134 recursive calls
0 db block gets
38903505 consistent gets
598254 physical reads
60 redo size
901 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
461 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
1 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
34 sorts (memory)
0 sorts (disk)
0 rows processed
Thanks a lot in advance
Jerry

Hi
Basically there are two kinds of tables
- fact
- lookup
The number of records in a lookup table is usually small.
The number of records in a fact table is usually huge.
However, in test systems the number of records in a fact table is often also small.
This results in different execution plans.
I notice again you don't post version and platform info, and you didn't make sure your explain is properly idented
Please read the FAQ to make sure it is properly idented.
Also using the word 'buddies' is as far as I am concerned nearing disrespect and rudeness.
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

Simple class runs 3x slower inside 8i than outside...why?

I have a simple class to read a large number of numbers (1E6) and sort them using the java Collections.sort(). I tested the class in the JVM run as a Procedure and externally as a simple class on my desktop.Running Oracle 8i on Linux Redhat7.2. The external version runs about 3 times faster and I have no idea why.
Running the class in the JVM: Server is a Compaq P800-256128US with PIII 800 MHz 256 KB cache & 256MB PC-133 and SCSI drives.
Connection time: 0.004 seconds
ArrayList build: 223.27 seconds
Collection.sort(): 101.29 seconds
Running the class on my workstation: Machine is a Compaq DeskPro w/PIII with 256MB.
OP:Connecting...
----The operation took 5.734 seconds
OP:Building List...
----The operation took 81.141 seconds
OP: Sorting 1000000 items...
----The operation took 6.859 seconds
Here is the class trivial logic:
Connection conn = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:default:connection:");
List list = new ArrayList();
stmt = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet rset = stmt.executeQuery("select List from NUMBERS");
while (rset.next())
list.add(Integer.valueOf(rset.getString(1)));
Collections.sort(list);//sorting
I have timing calls embedded not shown here in both versions to measure and of course the connection is different for external call.
What do you think of these results? What should I check?
Thanks,
Chris

Id like to follow up with some questions:
1.)     Oracle documentation states that PL/SQL is the preferred tool for data intensive jobs. And Java Stored Procedures are preferred for more algorithmic jobs. This seems contrary to what you state. Can you clearify?
2.)     When you say gen. purpose and cpu bound Java code, do you mean algorithmic code?
3.)     I assume the points 1 and 2 in your response suggest that it takes so long to get the Java environment up and running that it is killing the performance of my simple algorithm...is that what you mean?
4.)     My real goal is to use intelligent agents (use AI algorithms that are very expensive computationally) and are invoked upon updates and continually train on newly inserted data. The fact these guys can live in the Oracle JVM, be invoked upon an update using a trigger and call an EJB client in warning of a particular condition is what made me fall in love with this solution that Oracle provides. But do you think I am asking too much or Im going a bit beyond what the JVM is for?

Firefox 22 running very slow on windows 7 but no problem in linux. Help

Firefox 22 is running very slow ( rather stalling forever) on windows 7.
I tried resetting option from the "Troubleshooting information" menu and also tried disabling "Hardware acceleration" but still having the problem.
Takes almost a minute ( "New window not responding"..) just to try any option..like opening a new tab.
I have same version on linux mint and but FF runs smoothly.

Sorry, not an option. As I said, I have binned FF22 and gone back to 21 -- and it works just as fast as it always did, corrupt profile or no corrupt profile.

Why aperture running very slow?

I just installed additional ram and the other day aperture was running extremely slow. The only other application was iphoto.
How much CPU power does aperture require?
thanks.

sharon108 wrote:
After consolidating iPhoto pictures into Aperture Library - and having to rebuild library all photos are shown under "Other" in storage under About this Mac. How do I get photos back into the Photo section. I am sure this is why Aperture is running very slow. Aperture library is on a 500 GB external USB hard drive. Does anyone know how to get photos into the right spot in the storage.
Nothing in my experience would make me draw the same conclusion (that the reporting of your Aperture Library as "Other" is why Aperture is running slowly). You report that your Library is on an external drive connected via USB. Is this USB 2 or USB 3?
The consensus is to put your Library on your fastest (lowest latency and highest throughput) drive. This is almost always your system drive. If your Library does not fit on your system drive, you are advised to move some or all of your Images' Master from the Library to a second drive using "File→Relocate Masters". If you want help with these set-ups, post back.

Why Friefox runs supper slow.

See every time like 2 days it runs fine. Right now its running supper slow again again Not liking it on theses websites running supper slow. On theses website's on www.yahoo.com and www.Facebook.com and www.tag.com it sucks Please fix to make it run faster not slow please ty. GETTING tired of it.

Click the Firefox button, go to Add-ons, then Plugins.
In there, disable "'''My Web Search'''". This is an adware which probably came bundled with a 'free' app you installed at some time or another. It runs silently in the background searching for ads to feed you.
In addition, update your Flash installation. The version you have at the moment exposes your system to exploits. See http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb11-12.html
Link to the update at the foot of the page in that article.

My iPad2 runs much slower in iOS8 than iOS7

I have an iPad 2 that ran perfectly under iOS7, but when I upgraded to iOS8 it runs much slower and is barely usable. I have a 16GB model with about 5GB available storage. Do I just need to get a new iPad or is there some way to keep my current iPad running with a reasonable response time under iOS8?

See this cool mp3 xml player with visualization, playlist and
skins. Fully customisable. Vector.
http://flashden.net/item/mp3-xml-strongplayerstrong-with-visualization-and-skins-vectorise d/11851

Why is iTunesU running very slow on Windows 7?

iTunesU is running very slowly on machines using Windows 7 and iTunes 10. It works fine on Windows XP withe iTunes 10. Why is it slow in iTunes 10 and Windows 7?

Yes. It does seem to be specific to 10.2.2 Other versions are working fine. In windows XP 10.2.2 has not given me any problems. But on Windows 7 it appears to be frozen for about 5 minutes then it starts working but it still lags. Are you Apple people going to address this? Is this something that can be fixed with another update?

Why is Thunderbird running very slow on Windows 7 CAUSE: McAfee

Installed Thunderbird ver 31.6.0 on my desktop Windows 7 Home Premium, SP1, 32bit, 4G ram, Intel i5 2.66 GHz,
a few months ago and it ran great at first.
Now that I've used it awhile it has slowed down considerably.
All functions of Thunderbird are slow, clicking to highlight a group of messages, deleting even just a single message, opening a message, etc.
It has compacted the folders several times, and I do not have a large number of stored messages (maybe total of all folders including trash, spam, sent, etc is around 500).
I am running McAfee Anit-Virus which does scan email attachments.
Has there been reports of slow performance with Thunderbird on Win7?
Perhaps my problem is caused by McAfee?
Thoughts, suggestions are welcomed,
Thank you,
Ken

<blockquote>
Perhaps my problem is caused by McAfee?
</blockquote>
It is.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Antivirus_Related_Performance_Issues#McAfee

Is there a technical explanation for why iTunes runs so slow?

I seem to experience a lack of performance using iTunes on a PC. It doesn't seem to matter which PC as I have tried many over the years. But the problems persist. Slow program loading, syncing problems, (both USB and wi-fi), iTunes Match problems, program freezes and unresponsiveness, changing from "Install" to "Will Install" in app lists. It really detracts from the over all experience with my iPhone and iPad. I have talked to people with Macs and they never seem to have these problems. I am curious as to why the difficulty in running iTunes on the PC platform. I have never really found a resource that directly addresses the matter and am looking for suggestions other than faster computers or reinstalling, which I have done many times.

It would help if you could be more specific about the problems you're experiencing. I run iTunes on a variety of Windows systems: a 10-year desktop running WinXP SP3 / 32 bit, a desktop running Win7 / 32 bit, two laptops running Win7 / 64 bit and a netbook running Win8.1 / 64 bit. The only performance issues I see are on the older machines, where some library operations can be a little slow but these can be explained by the size of my library (approx. 600 Gb). There are, however, all sorts of combinations of hardware and operating system that can affect application performance - iTunes is something of a memory-hog so can contribute to performance issues if running at the same time as other memory, processor, or disc intensive applications. One example I had in the past was the combination of iTunes with a resource-hungry anti-virus utility (solved by changing the latter and making sure that scheduled scans happen at times when I'm highly unlikely to be running iTunes).

MUST READ - Found out why LR runs so slow on my Computer

I'm running a 3.2 Pentium 4 with 3 Gigs RAM and an ATI Radeon X700 graphics card with 256 onboard memory.
OS = Vista Ultimate
I found that running in safe mode produces stellar results. It flies, LR that is. But starting up in diagnostic mode produced the same unusable LR that was frustating me so. The difference is that in safe mode the computer loads a VGA driver for the video card.
I decided to update (or downgrade) my video driver to Windows Standard VGA driver. BAMM!!! Can't slow the sucker down. Previews are instantaneous when loading up Normal mode for Windows.
The funny part is that I tested LR 4.1 BETA and it worked great using my ATI driver. As soon as I went to LR 1.0 I had the performance issues.
Is there someone that I can notify at Adobe about this issue. I believe that many of us are in the same boat and there is definitely an issue between the two versions.
For those that need it, do the following to downgrade your driver to see if this resolves the issue for you:
Device Manager - Display Adapter - (choose your video card)select properties - Driver Tab - Update Driver - Browse computer for driver - Pick from list of drivers on computer - select Windows Standard VGA Driver. Restart computer. Enjoy.

Nvidia drivers have been criticized, ATI's seem to work just fine. They aren't stopping me from playing heavy 3D games, at any rate.
Gerald, downgrading your video driver is probably a bad idea, you'll lose a lot of helpful video acceleration and features that make your desktop snappier than with the basic VGA driver. Instead, you could try right-clicking the Lightroom icon, going to the Compatibility tab, and checking Disable Desktop Composition. This will automatically turn off the Aero GUI while Lightroom is running. Some programs just seem to have problems with it. I have problems with Flash 8 and the Aero interface, where a simple animation of going into an object becomes a painfully slow ordeal (those who have used the Flash IDE, should know what I'm talking about. Double-clicking on an object to edit it, shows an outline that kind of "zooms" into the object.) It's just not compatible with Vista's Aero desktop rendering.
Try re-enabling the correct driver for your graphics card, then disabling Aero just for Lightroom, and see if that doesn't also bring you to the same performance level. You will see the Desktop Windows Manager changing the screen from 3D Aero to 2D Basic automatically, when you run Lightroom, and it will restore it when you quit.

Update to itunes 10.6.1 and yo get into middle ages!, why it runs so slow? , hope apple will fix it very soon!

Anyone knows what is happening?

You're really not giving us much to work with in terms of what you mean by slow, what computer you are running, how large your library is, what other services you may be running (e.g., Match, Genius), etc. Not many other people are complaining about this which would suggest it isn't something that Apple would consider needs fixing. It's probably something about your computer.
To get more information about your computer, go to the Apple in the upper left corner of any window, then "About This Mac", then "More Info..." Copy and paste the information here, but omit the serial number and Hardware UUID (if present).

Why is my wifi slow on Windows 7 and not Mountain Lion?

I have Windows 7 installed through boot camp. I purchased my MacBook Pro new 2012. When I use wifi in Mountain Lion, it works great. When I boot into Windows 7 I get SUPER slow speeds. OSX I get full speed at 60 Mb/s. Windows I get 1 Mb/s or lower. I updated OSX, and windows 7. I have an Samsung SSD 840 Pro and everything is running incredibly fast. I just need the wifi fixed. I also purchased an Airport Extreme about 2 months ago, latest version. Airport Utility is also up to date. Please help!

Try a different cable. And are you connecting directly to your computer or through a USB hub?

Why is running Elements 8 slower on Windows 7 than XP?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for