 |
 |
Slow InDesign
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
How to accelerate opening of and working with InDesign CS2 on my miniMAC , version 10.4.11 (Memory 512 MB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
You need
RAM.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
Keep on Plan A:
Move on to Plan B:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
So Plan A is to solve the problem and Plan B is to create a whole new one?
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
The problem is that we don't know if his/her Mac mini is PowerPC or intel based. Be it the later he/she would need to upgrade to InDesign CS3 or CS4 in order to avoid running InDesign under Rosetta. There is not such a problem with Quark XPress 7 which is an Universal app. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by angelmb 
The problem is that we don't know if his/her Mac mini is PowerPC or intel based. Be it the later he/she would need to upgrade to InDesign CS3 or CS4 in order to avoid running InDesign under Rosetta. There is not such a problem with Quark XPress 7 which is an Universal app.
Show me this PPC Mini with 667Mhz DDR2 RAM.
Good catch on CS2 vs 3/4.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by angelmb
The problem is that we don't know if his/her Mac mini is PowerPC or intel based. Be it the later he/she would need to upgrade to InDesign CS3 or CS4 in order to avoid running InDesign under Rosetta. There is not such a problem with Quark XPress 7 which is an Universal app.
Good catch on the CPU, but all the newer versions of InDesign are universal, so I'm not sure where the win is in going with a newer Quark versus a newer InDesign. Also, I still think the RAM hit will probably be even bigger than the Rosetta hit on an Intel Mac with 512 MB RAM.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
So, it is an intel Mac mini, hence the sluggish PowerPC InDesign performance. Anyhow, as stated by Chuckit -and given how bloated Adobe apps get with every new version- even updating to CS3 in order to run a native intel InDesign is not going to solve your problem, you would have to increase the RAM to 1 GB minimum, 2 GB better.
Ideally, that would remove your problem.
BTW: QXP 7 requires 128 MB RAM 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm pretty sure InDesign "requires 128 MB RAM" in exactly the same way. Both Quark and Indy run like crap with less than a gig. It used to be that Quark was much less taxing on your system, but Quark 6 was a little worse and from what little I've used of the more recent versions, they only seem to have gotten fatter.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
From Adobe's website:
Adobe InDesign CS4 cannot be installed if the remaining amount of system memory does not meet system requirements.
Which are 512MB of RAM (1GB recommended). So I presume he/she wouldn't be able to install CS4 there.
Anyhow, this is becoming an InDesign Vs. QXP debate which I guess is not of any help to the original poster… if he/she has to rely on and follow a given workflow.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
My understanding from our Mac consultant is, while InDesign is a universal binary, it is particularly tuned towards Intel. He suggested that InDesign would work better on our Mac Mini--not a particularly powerful machine, I guess--than our dual-processor G5, for that reason alone. So based on that, if you have the resources, maybe an investment in an Intel-based Mac might be prudent and possibly save money in the long run in terms of time saved through productivity gains.
Am I on track here? I'm just a poor graphic designer weaned on System 6.0.4.
Then again, if the machine is already Intel-based, then I concur with load-it-up-with RAM idea. That's always the first option, and sure did work great with my dual-G5 (oh, how I long for an Intel Mac!).
(
Last edited by LaGow; Jul 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
Adobe fine tuning anything Mac related?, like what… Flash?, perhaps the intel Macs being much faster than the PowerPC has something to do with it, it is not like CS4 apps made good use of the multiple cores modern CPUs have…
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, that's the story from our consultant, although considering Adobe's history in that regard you have a right to be incredulous. Personally, I think what you're saying about the overall speed gains brought by simply using an Intel Mac makes much more sense anyway.
But obviously, as has been stated previously, the best bang for your buck in any case is more RAM. Pageouts are a bitch.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top