Win 7 compatibility

Discussion in 'Demo User Tech Support' started by different, Dec 3, 2014.

  1. different

    different Standard User

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4
    Hi

    Did install the trial version on a clean Win 7.
    Performance is very bad, all in all hardly more than 10% of CPU power is used, all tasks are extremly slow (stacking, convolution ...)
    My, PC being a i7, there are 8 virtual CPU's of which Maxim only uses 4 at all - and those four with very very low performance.
    RAM is 16G - hardly 10% is in use.
    HD has plenty of free space.
    Switching into XP compatibility mode has no effect whatsoever
    Other software I have no troubles with.

    Any ideas?
    Thanks!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2014
  2. Tim

    Tim Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,624
    MaxIm DL is currently a 32-bit program. It will only use up to 3GB of memory on average.
     
  3. different

    different Standard User

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4
    Ok, thanks for clarification.

    What about the very very bad performance regarding CPU power?
    My machine usually rocks, not so with this software.
    As said, going back to XP compatibility mode did not make any difference whatsoever.

    Anything you would suggestt?
     
  4. Tim

    Tim Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,624
    XP compatibility has nothing to do with CPU performance.

    Some functions are multi-threaded, and some are not. Some functions are simply not CPU intensive, but rather memory intensive. You would typically not want a process using up 100% of your CPU anyway, as this would likely have the opposite affect that you desire....a slow unresponsive computer.

    We are constantly updating the abilities and speed of MaxIm DL, but it is a big program, and a big job.
     
  5. different

    different Standard User

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4
    So - if I interprete your answer right - when / where the software performance is bad on a fast machine like mine, the multi-threading is not yet implemented fully for theses parts, but might be available at later software versions?
    In effect, what I observed is the "proper" performance as for the current version and there is nothing I can do to speed it up?

    Uhh, thats bad news.
    Many thanks for clarification anyway.
     
  6. Doug

    Doug Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    6,194
    It all depends what function you are using. Stacking is very I/O intensive; it's not the CPU that is limiting you, it's the transfer of data to/from memory that is the limit. Assigning more CPUs to the task does not improve performance (we did try that). The Task Manager does not show that sort of information, so your assumptions about "bad performance" are not accurate. Also when large number of images are stacked there are disk transfers involved due to the large amount of data.

    Some of the more complex algorithms are threaded for better performance, and over time we are adding more parallelism where appropriate.

    What software are you comparing against? This software works with 32-bit floating point data, so comparing to an 8-bit paint program would be an inappropriate comparison.
     
  7. different

    different Standard User

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4
    Again, thanks for clarification.

    I'm not comparing to anything else, just wondering as to why its apparently so slow where resources seem to allow for way more.
    Key point for me is that it is what it is - at least at current version - nothing to be possibly improved from my side.

    I'll be watching out you to come up with a 64bit version hopefully soon.
     

Share This Page