Version 7 > animated text won't flow smoothly
2/5/2009 5:47:42 PM
Can anyone explain why, when I animate a text box to flow across a background using slide show builder, it doesn't move smoothly across the screen? It's kind of jerky. I can run .avi and .mov files just fine. I'm really hoping it's not the video card. I have a GeForce FX5500 'cus that's the best this old PC can handle and I can't upgrade.
Thanks
Sue
Thanks
Sue
2/5/2009 6:58:55 PM
Unfortunately, it may be the video card. Have you updated to the newest driver that NVIDIA offers for the FX5500? Sometimes a driver update can resolve issues like this. Sometimes even going back a driver or two will help. Whej I had a FX5600 in my SSP machine, there was one driver update that caused the monitors to become unresponsive during boot.
2/6/2009 9:07:30 AM
I would also agree that the video card is most likely the cause...
You can start with the driver but the 5500 is below minimum recommendations for animations. It will also make a big difference depending on what you are animating the text over... What is your background and what other effects (Shadow, lighting) are applied?
Try a blank slide with solid color background and animate text with no other effects applied and see if that is better. If that works then work up from there adding things back to see where the limit is...
What is the limiting factor on your system for an upgrade? Do you have an AGP video card slot?
2/7/2009 5:41:54 AM
I have the most recent driver update. I'll try creating a blank slide and animate simple text and add complexity from there as you suggest. If nothing else that will pinpoint the "breaking point" of my graphics capabilities. I did drop the background from a Digital Juice Jumpback to a still image but it didn't help.
Unfortunately the card slot is PCI. It's the best our system can hold as far as I know. We are a very small church with an extremely limited budget (as in the pastor doesn't even always draw a salary) So my 4 year old Lenovo Think Centre is going to have to suffice for now and I'll deal with the limitations.
All the help and advice I get here helps me optimize our capabilities and I really appreciate being able to get the very best out of what we've got. But quite frankly, we have a very needy congregation, needy in many ways, so top quality video and graphics are low on the priority list. And rightly so!
Thanks for the suggestions
Sue
Unfortunately the card slot is PCI. It's the best our system can hold as far as I know. We are a very small church with an extremely limited budget (as in the pastor doesn't even always draw a salary) So my 4 year old Lenovo Think Centre is going to have to suffice for now and I'll deal with the limitations.
All the help and advice I get here helps me optimize our capabilities and I really appreciate being able to get the very best out of what we've got. But quite frankly, we have a very needy congregation, needy in many ways, so top quality video and graphics are low on the priority list. And rightly so!
Thanks for the suggestions
Sue
2/10/2009 12:43:15 PM
There are PCI cards out there that are much newer, and relatively inexpensive. I did a quick search on www.newegg.com and found an NVIDIA Sparkle 256 MB 8400GS PCI card for 50 bucks. Although there are fewer PCI cards being made, there are still some.
It sounds like a video card upgrade, even to the one listed above, would make a night and day difference for you. Good luck!
It sounds like a video card upgrade, even to the one listed above, would make a night and day difference for you. Good luck!
2/12/2009 7:07:20 PM
Steven,
Since I know next to nothing about computers, I have to ask another question: While I love the thought of upgrading to a better card (more stuff to play with!) I looked up the nvidia sparkle 8400 and it's for 64 bit memory. Isn't that Vista-only compatable? I'm on XP.
2/15/2009 9:52:18 AM
Sue,
Short answer about the 64-bit memory being only vista compatible - that is not the case. You will not have problems with that bit size on XP. There are cards (even better than the one for $50) that are a little more expensive that have 128-bit memory, or even 256-bit. In short, this has nothing to do with the operating system, and has more to do with how fast memory can be transferred to/from the card.
So, from a purely functional standpoint, feel free on basically any PCI video card that strikes your fancy - there are none that are "vista only" that I know of (yet). The only caveat to this is that some video cards have drivers which are better / worse on one operating system vs. another. You can usually check reviews (Newegg is good for this) to get a feel for the state of the drivers. To date, drivers have been generally better on XP than Vista.
There is a technical response to your question - which I will hit only briefly for clarification. CPUs, Memory, Operating Systems, and even programs all have a native "bit" size for data. For the operating system, this determines the maximum amount of system memory supported (4GB for WinXP). Every few years, this number doubles, and must be supported by the CPU, the operating system, and the programs they run. Usually there is some support for backward compatibility - so a 32-bit program can usually run in a 64-bit operating system, and a 32-bit operating system runs fine on a 64-bit CPU. In fact, your current CPU (4 years old) is probably 64-bit!
This means that a 64-bit CPU could support a 64-bit operating system, which could run 64-bit programs - but most people are running a 32-bit operating system, and 32-bit programs on their 64-bit CPUs. SSP is currently a 32-bit application, and was written mostly on XP 32-bit.
As to the operating system itself, there are both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of XP, as well as Vista, as well as Windows 7.
Let me know if you have any more questions!
Short answer about the 64-bit memory being only vista compatible - that is not the case. You will not have problems with that bit size on XP. There are cards (even better than the one for $50) that are a little more expensive that have 128-bit memory, or even 256-bit. In short, this has nothing to do with the operating system, and has more to do with how fast memory can be transferred to/from the card.
So, from a purely functional standpoint, feel free on basically any PCI video card that strikes your fancy - there are none that are "vista only" that I know of (yet). The only caveat to this is that some video cards have drivers which are better / worse on one operating system vs. another. You can usually check reviews (Newegg is good for this) to get a feel for the state of the drivers. To date, drivers have been generally better on XP than Vista.
There is a technical response to your question - which I will hit only briefly for clarification. CPUs, Memory, Operating Systems, and even programs all have a native "bit" size for data. For the operating system, this determines the maximum amount of system memory supported (4GB for WinXP). Every few years, this number doubles, and must be supported by the CPU, the operating system, and the programs they run. Usually there is some support for backward compatibility - so a 32-bit program can usually run in a 64-bit operating system, and a 32-bit operating system runs fine on a 64-bit CPU. In fact, your current CPU (4 years old) is probably 64-bit!
This means that a 64-bit CPU could support a 64-bit operating system, which could run 64-bit programs - but most people are running a 32-bit operating system, and 32-bit programs on their 64-bit CPUs. SSP is currently a 32-bit application, and was written mostly on XP 32-bit.
As to the operating system itself, there are both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of XP, as well as Vista, as well as Windows 7.
Let me know if you have any more questions!
2/17/2009 5:59:52 PM
All this talk about bits made me think of the following. It took a while to find the exact phrase.
windows is a 32 bit shell on a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally designed for a 4 bit microprocessor, made by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition
2/17/2009 6:33:38 PM
Posted By iamgap on 02/17/2009 5:59 PM
All this talk about bits made me think of the following. It took a while to find the exact phrase.
windows is a 32 bit shell on a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally designed for a 4 bit microprocessor, made by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition
And the people said, Amen. I can never remember the 4 bit step of that.All this talk about bits made me think of the following. It took a while to find the exact phrase.
windows is a 32 bit shell on a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally designed for a 4 bit microprocessor, made by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition
And Vista is a 64 bit rewrite of a 32 bit...
(Better watch out. R-Technics seems to have drunk long and deep of the Microsoft Kool-Aid. Hence the dotNET requirement.
)
2/17/2009 8:49:50 PM
Posted By osborn4 on 02/17/2009 6:33 PM
And Vista is a 64 bit rewrite of a 32 bit...
(Better watch out. R-Technics seems to have drunk long and deep of the Microsoft Kool-Aid. Hence the dotNET requirement. )
Posted By iamgap on 02/17/2009 5:59 PM
All this talk about bits made me think of the following. It took a while to find the exact phrase.
windows is a 32 bit shell on a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally designed for a 4 bit microprocessor, made by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition
And the people said, Amen. I can never remember the 4 bit step of that.All this talk about bits made me think of the following. It took a while to find the exact phrase.
windows is a 32 bit shell on a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally designed for a 4 bit microprocessor, made by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition
And Vista is a 64 bit rewrite of a 32 bit...
(Better watch out. R-Technics seems to have drunk long and deep of the Microsoft Kool-Aid. Hence the dotNET requirement.
)What dotNET requirement?
2/18/2009 7:13:17 AM
Posted By dreece on 02/17/2009 8:49 PM
What dotNET requirement?
I thought we needed to install dotNET 2.0 to run SSP.
What dotNET requirement?
Maybe that went away and and I never noticed?
Maybe I'm misremembering?
Maybe I'm getting dotNET confused with DirectX?
Any of the above our possibilities.
2/18/2009 9:05:11 AM
SSP has never required dotNET. Perhaps you're thinking of DirectX.
2/18/2009 9:52:08 AM
Posted By dreece on 02/18/2009 9:05 AM
SSP has never required dotNET. Perhaps you're thinking of DirectX.
I'm sure that's what I was remembering. SSP has never required dotNET. Perhaps you're thinking of DirectX.
Sorry about that. I'll try to keep my Microsoft koolaid flavors straight next time.
nVidia's the one that's been requiring dotNET 2.0.
2/18/2009 12:02:17 PM
Posted By osborn4 on 02/18/2009 9:52 AM
nVidia's the one that's been requiring dotNET 2.0.
nVidia's the one that's been requiring dotNET 2.0.
Actually it is the ATI Catalyst Control Panel that requires DotNET - nvidia does not....
2/18/2009 12:18:10 PM
Posted By George on 02/18/2009 12:02 PM
Actually it is the ATI Catalyst Control Panel that requires DotNET - nvidia does not....
You are correct. Posted By osborn4 on 02/18/2009 9:52 AM
nVidia's the one that's been requiring dotNET 2.0.
nVidia's the one that's been requiring dotNET 2.0.
Actually it is the ATI Catalyst Control Panel that requires DotNET - nvidia does not....
Boy, I'm battin' 0 fer in this thread. I'd better sign out.
2/19/2009 11:18:05 AM
It has been said that any computer program has at least one instruction that can be removed. It has also been said that every computer program has at least one bug.
So by correlation it can be derived that the smallest possible computer program is a single instruction that does not work.
So by correlation it can be derived that the smallest possible computer program is a single instruction that does not work.
2/20/2009 6:07:34 PM
HOO boy has this wandered down the ole rabbit trail. So, back to my original question...
How can I tell if the nVidia sparkle 8400 GS requires additional power? My understanding is that some cards have a little hook up thingy that allows them to draw extra power from the mother board (or something like that)
Sue
How can I tell if the nVidia sparkle 8400 GS requires additional power? My understanding is that some cards have a little hook up thingy that allows them to draw extra power from the mother board (or something like that)
Sue
2/20/2009 7:29:45 PM
I have looked at every image I can find of this card, and it doesn't appear to have a power port (except for the fan connector). I cannot find anything that shows a minimu power supply size. Usually, if extra power is required, there will be a cable included in the box. You can get splitters if you don't have enough connectors with your current power supply. It wouldn't hurt upgrade your power supply if it is less than 450watts.
To post messages to the forums you must be signed in to a user account.