The biggest speed difference I've seen in verify is upgrading to SSD. Anytime you see your hard drive blinking in Mastercam it will speed that up significantly.

I had one I used to have my programmers check off some years back. Like most forms, people just checked the things off and missed them anyway. Needless to say, the system only lasted a month or 2. It wasn't until I started to track missing info / steps and bringing it up at review time that I saw any progress.

Well I got a Fermi based Quadro 600 in today and ran some comparisons to the previous equivalent FX-580. The difference in speed and graphics quality is pretty big. Just in verification I took a large file and ran on both with the same settings and FX-580 was 6min. 42 secs and the Quadro 600 was 4 min. 59 secs. that works out to +35% just in verify. Also the updated driver adds a switch for antialiasing line gamma that helps trimming and line disappearing (better but not perfect). With the 580 when I first use the spaceball there was a very brief stutter then it was smooth, the new 600 took care of that completely...stutter free even with tighter antialiasing settings that turns the line geo into perfect lines and removes the jaggies from lower or no overide settings. For $160.00 this is a great upgrade for a home machine or even a work machine the deals with 20meg or so and under file size (test file was 43 megs and ran flawless). Heat and power...is LESS with the new Fermi 600. I ran a high of 58c under heavy use with normals around 47 with FX580. With the 600 I hit a high of 54 and normal use around 42C (on single Dell 24" ultrasharp). Size...this thing is SMALL! I thought I got ripped until I saw results. Its 1/2 height (much smaller then the 580) and is rated the top buy for power to performance ratio. Also the memery on 580 was 512 meg and the 600 is 1 gig. FWIW Win 7 rating went from 6.4 on both (aero and gaming) to 6.6 on both. Not a huge jump but their rating is heavily weighted to Aero and 3-D gaming which this card is not really designed for. IIRC the FX-1800 at $440.00 prior was 6.7 win 7 rating just to compare. Great buy IMO!

Wow...a little toast with those eggs? 2 things though, that article is 6 months old, and I've heard nothing about this problem in the reviews I've read. And that problem is with dual monitors which I prefer a single 24" ultrasharp. So, maybe I'll give the new 600 a try for my home I7 machine, I've got 4 fans in it and OCed it idles at 32c. I have speedfan app to monitor all temps.

Are you sure that is not more on the higher end cards? Reason I ask is the Quadro 600 only draws 40w of power and 60 for the 2000 IIRC...and power = heat. My FX580 runs at 47c max on average (116.6F), not bad at all.

They've been out near a month now and I haven't heard much about them (in the Cad world). The Quadro 2000 replaces the FX1800 and is 150% the speed, and the 600 replaces the FX580 and is 200% the speed. The 600 can be found for $169.00 and sounds like it is now even faster then the old FX1800 that was over $400.00. Much of what is realized in gains is in how well supported drivers are so I thought I'd ask before giving one a try. Is anyone running these new cards...impressions?? Fermi Based card review

Forget about running MC in XP mode. It is slower then a salted slug and very glitchy. It says right in the XP mode notes not intended for heavy graphical use (such as cad). Been there, done that...waste of time, and a useless crap product that MS has to calm businesses into upgrading.

Yep exactly. I reboot into XP for V9, but haven't needed it in over a month so no big deal to me. Your only more productive in V9 because you haven't allowed enough time yet. I understand when push comes to shove and a job needs to get out people go to the ole reliable...but eventually this will catch up as you NOW can see. Bite the bullet, wear some padding to work and fight thru at least X3.

I was spending a bunch of time reporting problems with verify and sending files in about 10 years ago with a multitude of issues. After years of this futility I gave up because giving up resulted in the same end result with less frustration. Now I just bitch now and then and feel much better about things.

quote: I must've missed that thread. This is quite frustrating. Did things get better in X4 in regards to this issue?Sorry, thats all the info I have for a Cougar. Actually, I'm running X3 also and only ran X4 for 2 weeks before going back...that said I dont think so. The question was raised by an X4 user.

This was recently brought up in another thread. And no the interface between MC and verfy do not work correct, do not hold the stl path or stock selection correct, haven't for MANY years....and worst of all, nobody seems to care. Pretty sad IMO. On the up side, we have stairs, doors, and art and I'm hopeful windows are on their way.

Been quite a few years since I ran an Okuma but dont they have a condense command that restores fragemted memory?

Good questions. I wonder how many 1000's of man hours have been lost over the years by 10's of thousands of users picking their file over and over? Best I can tell, is the Verify tab interface in config has a place to pick a file, and that sticks / steps on top of the file saved into Machine Files. I also believe the MC is incapable of changing and saving path to folders that you may store different part numbers into. Yes...very lame.

quote: When that prompt comes up, I always say "no".You've got that right...I have yet to find a reason to merge depths yet. Makes me wonder why bother with the nag.

Nobody with this issue has posted what graphics card or OS they are running. This is important info that is needed to help troubleshoot the issue.