RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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, make sure that the server likewise is amply endowed with memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit Ethernet)! - Dov Rene L. Stephenson eNovative Solutions, Inc. Business Phone: 678-513-0051 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 server likewise is amply endowed with memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit Ethernet)! - Dov Rene L. Stephenson eNovative Solutions, Inc. Business Phone: 678-513-0051 Email: rinnie1 at yahoo.com
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem Thanks, Jim ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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? John Posada Senior Technical Writer I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame 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 improvement. Our PCs are pretty current. I don't want to get lost in the details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network server? Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of large graphics, adding a second gig would be worthwhile. A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's unlikely with a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 graphics to our local machines and we can't move Frame to the server, so we are stuck with this configuration. The only delays come the first time a graphic is loaded. After I've scrolled through a document all the way (and that can take quite some time), it's fine. I don't this is due to some error since my supervisor is having the same problem on his PC (which has nearly identical statistics to mine). Here are some hardware stats in case they're helpful: Pentium 4 (2.4 GHz, 2.39 GHz) 512 MB Ram Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller (isn't this a cheap imbedded chipset?) Windows XP -Original Message- From: Combs, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:12 PM To: James Dyson; framers@lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: Frame 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 improvement. Our PCs are pretty current. I don't want to get lost in the details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network server? Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of large graphics, adding a second gig would be worthwhile. A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's unlikely with a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 point. The software still has to do the rendering before it can be displayed. From your system config, your 512 RAM is the obvious bottleneck because that amount of RAM is the minimum. Bump it to the 2-4G range and you'll see a vast improvement. Art On 11/6/06, Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358 -- Art Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl. -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
Rendering for the screen is not the bottleneck. Downloading an image and/or rendering it internally are *far* slower than the on-screen rendering. A high-powered graphics card only makes an improvement for things like PhotoShop, 3D rendering applications (e.g. CAD), and gaming where millions of pixels have to get calculated for every frame and the frames need to be refreshed frequently. Rendering a static graphic image is not accelerated by a better graphics board. My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel. Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com) Intel Parsippany, NJ -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 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 details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem Thanks, Jim ___ ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 -- neither upgrading the graphics nor increasing your RAM will solve the problem. If it used to be _better_, and now it's _worse_, you have to look for what's _changed_ -- and from what you've said, it isn't your PC. I strongly suspect your problem is in the network itself or on the server. It could be just increased traffic or more demands being put on that server. Or it could be a problem with a switch or something. If your company has an IT dept., it's time to call on them for help. Although, if you can get your boss to spring for another 512MB of RAM first just to see if it helps, go for it. ;-) HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 -- ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card is of relatively low significane for performance issues. I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most difference for long, 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 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 details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network server? Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of large graphics, adding a second gig would be worthwhile. A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's unlikely with a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). HTH! Richard ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
Further update ... If you are access data from a server, make sure that the server likewise is amply endowed with memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit Ethernet)! - 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 low significane for performance issues. I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents. - Dov ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send list messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem Thanks, Jim
Frame 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 improvement. Our PCs are pretty > current. I don't want to get lost in the details of hardware > configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any > success in alleviating the problem I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network server? Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of large graphics, adding a second gig would be worthwhile. A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's unlikely with a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 --
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 graphics to our local machines and we can't move Frame to the server, so we are stuck with this configuration. The only delays come the first time a graphic is loaded. After I've scrolled through a document all the way (and that can take quite some time), it's fine. I don't this is due to some error since my supervisor is having the same problem on his PC (which has nearly identical statistics to mine). Here are some hardware stats in case they're helpful: Pentium 4 (2.4 GHz, 2.39 GHz) 512 MB Ram Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller (isn't this a cheap imbedded chipset?) Windows XP -Original Message- From: Combs, Richard [mailto:richard.co...@polycom.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:12 PM To: James Dyson; framers at lists.frameusers.com Subject: RE: Frame 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 > improvement. Our PCs are pretty current. I don't want to get lost in > the details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if > anyone had any success in alleviating the problem I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network server? Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of large graphics, adding a second gig would be worthwhile. A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's unlikely with a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 --
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 point. The software still has to do the rendering before it can be displayed.
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
Rendering for the screen is not the bottleneck. Downloading an image and/or rendering it internally are *far* slower than the on-screen rendering. A high-powered graphics card only makes an improvement for things like PhotoShop, 3D rendering applications (e.g. CAD), and gaming where millions of pixels have to get calculated for every frame and the frames need to be refreshed frequently. Rendering a static graphic image is not accelerated by a better graphics board. My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel. Fred Ridder (fred dot ridder at intel dot com) Intel Parsippany, NJ -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 Card? 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 details of hardware configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any success in alleviating the problem Thanks, Jim ___
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
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 -- neither upgrading the graphics nor increasing your RAM will solve the problem. If it used to be _better_, and now it's _worse_, you have to look for what's _changed_ -- and from what you've said, it isn't your PC. I strongly suspect your problem is in the network itself or on the server. It could be just increased traffic or more demands being put on that server. Or it could be a problem with a switch or something. If your company has an IT dept., it's time to call on them for help. Although, if you can get your boss to spring for another 512MB of RAM first "just to see if it helps," go for it. ;-) HTH! Richard -- Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 -- rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 --
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
My experience is that for FrameMaker, the graphics card is of relatively low significane for performance issues. I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most difference for long, 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: > > > 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 details of hardware > > configurations etc., but was wondering if anyone had any > > success in alleviating the problem > > I suspect there'd be no noticeable improvement. (I assume your PC > currently has a reasonably recent video card, not just an > on-the-motherboard graphics chip that shares system memory.) > > John asked the first key question -- are the graphics on a network > server? > > Assuming they're on your PC, how much RAM does it have? More RAM would > almost certainly make far more difference than a faster graphics card. > You should have at least a gigabyte. If you have lots of > large graphics, > adding a second gig would be worthwhile. > > A very slow hard drive could also be a factor, but that's > unlikely with > a reasonably current PC (you do defrag regularly, right?). > > HTH! > Richard >
Frame on PC = upgrade the Graphics Card?
Further update ... If you are access data from a "server", make sure that the server likewise is amply endowed with memory and high speed disk. Furthermore, if you don't have it already, gigabit Ethernet can make a tremendous difference in this application (even over 100BaseT 100 megabit 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 for FrameMaker, the graphics card > is of relatively low significane for performance issues. > > I would endorse Richard's suggestions wrt/ memory and > disk. A full boat of real memory and high speed disk > (at least 7200 RPM if not higher) will make the most > difference for long, complex FrameMaker documents. > > - Dov > >
