Another note on server-based data: if you're having to access the server via
VPN, there are faster VPN routers, and tunnels and there are slower ones...so
check that, too.
:-)
Rene Stephenson
Dov Isaacs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further update ... If you are access data from a server,
Another note on server-based data: if you're having to access the server via
VPN, there are faster VPN routers, and tunnels and there are slower ones...so
check that, too.
:-)
Rene Stephenson
Dov Isaacs wrote:
Further update ... If you are access data from a "server",
make sure that the
Hello all,
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are loaded in
Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded their graphics card? We
are considering doing so here, and I suspect it will make a vast
improvement. Our PCs are pretty current. I don't want to get lost in the
I don't have a problem with graphics loading speed. Are you pulling
them down over a network?
--- James Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are
loaded in
Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded their graphics card?
James Dyson wrote:
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are
loaded in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded
their graphics card? We are considering doing so here, and I
suspect it will make a vast improvement. Our PCs are pretty
current. I don't want to
= upgrade the Graphics Card?
James Dyson wrote:
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are loaded
in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded their graphics card?
We are considering doing so here, and I suspect it will make a vast
improvement. Our PCs are pretty
Like the others, I don't think adding a graphics card is going to have
any effect.
What you're complaining about / experiencing is the time required for
Frame to render the
--
Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... In my opinion, there's nothing in this
Whoops something odd happened there.
What I was trying to say was that
What you're complaining about / experiencing is the time required for
Frame to render the graphic plus any network transport time. Because
it's FM doing the rendering, how much RAM you have on the graphics
card is a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Dyson
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:22 AM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
Hello all,
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are loaded
James Dyson wrote:
Yes, the graphics are on a server, but we haven't ever
noticed any slow data rates in the past. We can't move the
So you're saying that, on the _same_ PCs with the _same_ graphics
subsystem and memory, the graphics used to load faster? Well, then your
question is answered
, complex FrameMaker documents.
- Dov
-Original Message-
From: Combs, Richard
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:12 AM
To: James Dyson; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
James Dyson wrote:
Has anyone noticeably improved
)!
- Dov
-Original Message-
From: Dov Isaacs
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Combs, Richard; James Dyson; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card
is of relatively
Hello all,
Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are loaded in
Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded their graphics card? We
are considering doing so here, and I suspect it will make a vast
improvement. Our PCs are pretty current. I don't want to get lost in the
James Dyson wrote:
> Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are
> loaded in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded
> their graphics card? We are considering doing so here, and I
> suspect it will make a vast improvement. Our PCs are pretty
> current. I don't want
on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
James Dyson wrote:
> Has anyone noticeably improved the rate at which graphics are loaded
> in Frame while running on a PC when they upgraded their graphics card?
> We are considering doing so here, and I suspect it will make a vast
> improvem
Like the others, I don't think adding a graphics card is going to have
any effect.
What you're complaining about / experiencing is the time required for
Frame to render the
--
Art Campbell art.campbell at
gmail.com
"... In my opinion, there's
Whoops something odd happened there.
What I was trying to say was that
What you're complaining about / experiencing is the time required for
Frame to render the graphic plus any network transport time. Because
it's FM doing the rendering, how much RAM you have on the graphics
card is a moot
-Original Message-
From: framers-bounces+fred.ridder=intel@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+fred.ridder=intel.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
Behalf Of James Dyson
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:22 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics
James Dyson wrote:
> Yes, the graphics are on a server, but we haven't ever
> noticed any slow data rates in the past. We can't move the
So you're saying that, on the _same_ PCs with the _same_ graphics
subsystem and memory, the graphics used to load faster? Well, then your
question is
, complex FrameMaker documents.
- Dov
> -Original Message-
> From: Combs, Richard
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: James Dyson; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
>
> James Dyson wrote
t Ethernet)!
- Dov
> -Original Message-
> From: Dov Isaacs
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:51 PM
> To: Combs, Richard; James Dyson; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
>
> My experience is that fo
21 matches
Mail list logo
