I have no evidence of that, it's just my first conclusion from ONE case. So it's possible that WordFast software by concept is quite demanding on the video board and its memory. WFClassic became much faster than before the failure. the Radeon does not overheat like nVidia ģ. Two electrolytic capacitors on the nVidia were "blown" Ģ. Another store offered me a 2 GB AMD Radeon video board for less than one-third of that nVidia-512 price, so I bought it.ġ. Went shopping for a replacement, found a newer equivalent model, but too expensive. I can't remember exactly what was my troubleshooting procedure, but it led me to the video board. It took a while until similar problems began to occur in a few other programs too, however WFC was the first one where it was noticeable.
However I still stick to WFClassic.Ī couple of years ago, WFClassic became very slow to render the screen, from one segment to another. Quite frankly, I gave up on WFPro long ago on account of speed, not sure, but it might have been v2. I'm a big WordFast Pro 3 fan and I'd like to move forward and get settled with WPF4 because there are a lot of new and good features in it, but if I find myself wasting too much time, I may just go back to WFP3. Very inefficient for something I have to do dozens of times a day. I can't figure out what the proper shortcut is, so for now I have to go to the " Translation" section of the ribbon, then click the > icon at the end, then click on copy. When I click on an empty target segment, it takes a good 2 or 3 seconds for it to change color and become editable.Īnother issue is that the shortcut offered for copying over tags from the source segment (Cntrl + Alt + Down) moves my entire computer screen around and does not affect the source segment. (In WFP 3, they popped up immediately and I just had to press enter. For example, I often type out entire words or phrases from the glossary before they pop up as a translation option. I've having the same problem with WFP 4 speed. However, let's hope that when the official version is released, things will be faster. This may be because WFP4 is project-based whereas WFP3 is file-based (with only virtual projects). WFP4 also requires a lot more steps to move between processes, particularly if your project contains only one file. Moving between segments is near-instantaneous on WFP3 (and so moving through several segments is very responsive), but takes about 3/4 of a second per segment on WFP4 (which means that if you need to move to a segment that is more than 5 segments further on, it's actually faster to use the mouse). The fact that the menu system now uses a ribbon also slows things down a bit, because one's mouse has to move in three directions instead of just two to select any option (and perhaps it's just me - my hand-mouse coordination is better/faster when I have to select options from an up-and-down list than from a left-to-right list). I also find that there is a distinct lag (perhaps a 1/4 or a 1/3 of a second) between clicking any menu or button and that menu or button actually responding.