Bali Basik (NO MOVEMENTS) Mac OS

• Bali Basik (no Movements) Mac Os Catalina
• Bali Basic (no Movements) Mac Os Download
• Bali Basic (no Movements) Mac Os Pro

I am trialling running a Mac VM with Mac OS 10.13. On that VM I have Logic running. It seems to work well. 2 difficulties I have are: - Time line doesn't update graphically, it looks like it sticks even though playback works. When I click on the display it manually updates. Normally the timeline movement is fluid across the arrange page. The portable devices are becoming highly popular in the medical world, especially when they are available at budget-friendly prices. If you are searching for the top brands that manufacture the best ECG monitors in the industry, you should search for KardiaMobile, Emay, Contec, PM10, and many others.

Bandicam is a well-known screen recorder that is widely used by people all over the world. It allows you to capture your screen, webcam, audio, or record streaming video without effort. Compared to other similar screen recording software, it is much better, but also more expensive.

So most of you are searching for a free Bandicam alternative. Given that, this article will share with you the top 10 best free alternatives to Bandicam for both Windows and Mac. Continue reading to pick one that best suits your conditions.

Top 1. EaseUS RecExperts ★★★

Operating OS: Windows and Mac

EaseUS RecExperts is one of the most popular alternatives to Bandicam for Windows and Mac. Like Bandicam, it allows you to flexibly capture the screen, including a single window or a selected area. Also, you can record audio, webcam, live streaming, popular gameplay, and many others with the screen recording software.

Apart from those basic options, it enables you to add texts, lines, and arrows while recording. For the Mac screen capture, it even lets you capture your screen with leaving a watermark even if you use a free version.

Key features:

• Intuitive and simple workflow
• Allow you to record YouTube video and audio with ease
• Support recording various popular 2D/3D games in 4K resolution
• A free screen recorder no watermark for Mac users
• Save the recorded footage for more than 10 formats, like MP3, MP4, MOV, WMV, etc.

Just try it free! It will bring more surprises.

Top 2. ShareX

Operating OS: Windows

ShareX is an open-source and free screen recording program. It not only allows you to capture videos on your screen and share them with one click. Besides, this alternative to Bandicam offers you options to upload pictures, text placement, and other files to social media platforms. Most importantly, this screen recorder enables you to customize the workflow based on your own needs.

Key features:

• Allow you to record video and take screenshots on your screen
• You can save the recording as a video, audio, or GIF file
• Save the file on many platforms with numerous publishing options
• Enable you to extract text from the screen captures

Top 3. OBS Studio

Operating OS: Windows, macOS, and Linux

OBS Studio is another screen recorder like Bandicam, and it is open source screen recorder that is mainly used for screen recording and live streaming. It allows you to capture video and audio from multiple sources including microphones, system audio, and more.

After recording, you can add some transitions to the videos with the intuitive audio mixer. However, it is a little complicated for beginners without any tutorial.

Key features:

• Compatible with Windows, macOS, and Linux operating systems
• Offer real-time audio and video editing
• Simple and strong configuration options are available
• Allow you to upload recorded videos to YouTube and Twitch

Top 4. Camtasia

Operating OS: Windows and macOS

Camtasia is an all-in-one video recorder like Bandicam for Windows and Mac. It can help you capture anything on your computer screen, record system sound or microphone and share it instantly to YouTube, Vimeo, or your online video course.

In addition, it has a built-in video editor, which provides a vast number of editing options including filters and transitions.

Key features:

• Enable you to export recorded video in HD quality
• Offer Zoom in and out and pan animations options while recording
• Support more than 10 file formats including AVI, MP3, MP4, GIF, etc.
• Provide detailed tutorials to users

Top 5. Flashback Express

Operating OS: Windows

Flashback Express is one of the greatest screen recording software for Windows, and it is considered the best alternative to Bamdicam. It can assist you in recording anywhere on your PC screen, capture webcam, and record all kinds of audio.

While recording the screen, you also can add audio commentary to your video, and there is no length limitation for your recording. Besides, your recorded video will have no watermarks with Flashback Express.

Key features:

• No limits on movie length
• Record screen, webcam, and audio flexibly
• Enable you to upload recorded videos to YouTube
• Record videos with no watermark

Top 6. TinyTake

Operating OS: Windows and macOS

TinyTake is a free video recording software for Windows and Mac users. With this screen recorder, you can capture any image and video on your computer screen, add comments, and share them to social platforms in minutes. It also offers a way to store the screenshots and videos in the cloud and share a link to the stored recording files.

Key features:

• Allow you to record screen and webcam easily
• Record a video of your screen within 120 minutes
• Open, annotate and share an existing image
• Assign custom short-cut keys

Top 7. Snagit

Operating OS: Windows and macOS

Snagit is an amazing free screen recorder like Bnadicam. It enables you to capture any area of your screen, record your webcam, and capture audio (system sound or microphone).

Apart from these basic functions, it also offers many other options. With its help, you can grab text from a screen capture or file, convert your standard screenshots into simplified graphics, personalize your images with stickers, create video from images, etc.

Key features:

• Save your recorded video file as an mp4 or animated GIF
• Offer simple editing tools like trimming
• Automatically make objects in your screen captures movable
• Keep all of your most valuable tools together in one spot
• Upload and share directly to Youtube

Top 8. Screencast-O-Matic

Operating OS: Windows and macOS

Screencast-O-Matic is one of the most popular screen recording programs, as it is compatible with Windows and macOS. This screen recorder has a simple and intuitive interface, so even a novice can make incredible videos with it.

While recording your screen, you can add a narration at the same time. Moreover, it lets you use zoom in and out to highlight the key parts of the screen. You also can import text, shapes, images, and music from external sources.

Key features:

• Allow you to capture an image, part of the screen, or a single window
• Edit and annotate screen images via the image editor
• Enable you to extract text from the screen captures
• Share videos directly to platforms including Facebook and YouTube

Top 9. ScreenFlow

Operating OS: macOS

ScreenFlow is a screen recorder for Mac computers. It can record almost everything on your screen and export files with excellent quality. Also, it even monitors keystrokes and mouse movements, which is pretty clever. This software has an excellent zoom function which allows you to ass a touch of class and professionalism to your screenshots.

Key features:

• Simple and easy-to-use interface
• Support recording multiple screens at once
• Offer a lot of output formats for you to choose
• Offer rich editing tools for annotations, animations, and multi-channel use

Top 10. Camstudio

Operating OS: Windows

Camstudio is another open-source screen recorder mainly for recording online streaming videos. It allows you to record all screen and audio activity on your computer and create AVI video files. In addition, you can add texts and do other adjustments to your captured videos. This software is easy to use and allows you to record and save files easily.

Key features:

• Allow you to create small-sized files
• Custom cursor
• Support AVI and SWF format
• Quality options available for output video

You may also like:

Conclusion

On this page, we have introduced the best 10 Bandicam alternatives to you, you can pick one based on your operating system and needs.

If you have no idea about which screen recorder you should choose, we recommend EaseUS RecExperts. It not only can record screen and audio but offer basic editing tools. You can edit your recorded video by adding text, Intro, and Outro video, watermark, and many more, then upload and share it to the social media platforms.

Memory usage

If you're reading this article for tips on how to improve your Mac OS X experience, now's the time to pay attention. Aside from purchasing a new Mac, the most important thing you can do to make Mac OS X more bearable is to buy more RAM. Go ahead, don't be shy. 512MB sticks are going for as little as $50 if you look hard enough.

Frequent readers may recall that both the G3/400 and the dual G4/450 had only 256MB RAM at the time of the 10.0 review. After using 10.0.x for a few weeks on the G4, I got sick of hearing my disk grinding constantly and upgraded to 512MB. The silence that followed was truly golden. It was a bigger improvement than any of the 10.0.x upgrades, by far.

(Although the G3/400 primarily runs Mac OS 9, I upgraded it to 384MB because, well, RAM was too damn cheap not to, I guess.)

After a few weeks at 512MB, the G4 started to get a little grind-happy again. I shuffled some RAM between machines to boost the G4 again to its current total of 768MB, and noticed a nearly linear boost in 'smoothness' in daily use.

What's going on here? Where is all this memory going? Is Mac OS X a black hole for RAM? In a word, yes. But that's actually a good thing...sort of. I talked about Mac OS X's virtual memory system as it relates to the user experience and the infamous 'minimum required system' in the 10.0 article. I'd like to take a short break from the 'review' portion of this article and go into more detail about Mac OS X's memory system (as requested by numerous readers). Feel free to skip ahead to the summary if you're only interested in the RAM usage performance of 10.1 relative to 10.0.x.

(Note: A lot of the information presented below is heavily simplified in an effort to reach as broad an audience as possible. If you're interested in the gory details, picking up a good book on the topic is your best bet.)

Virtual Memory Basics

Mac OS X manages memory very differently than classic Mac OS. The first key to understanding memory usage in Mac OS X is to be understand how a modern virtual memory system works.

In a virtual memory management system, there is a distinction between real, physical memory and 'virtual' memory. An application's virtual memory size is the amount of memory the application thinks it has allocated, but only a (possibly very small) portion of that memory may actually be stored in the real, physical RAM chips sticking out of your computer's motherboard at any given time. The rest exists on disk in some form, usually in one or more 'swap files.'

The operating system decides what portion of which processes exist in physical memory at any given time. This decision process is complex, and varies from OS to OS, but it usually uses recent usage statistics in its decision making process. A process that has not accessed a particular piece of (real, physical) memory for a long time may find that memory written out to disk so that another more active process can use that piece of physical memory. When a process has a large portion of its memory removed from physical RAM and placed on the disk, it is said to be 'swapped out.'

If a process needs a previously swapped-out piece of memory again, it will be transferred from disk back into physical memory—possibly in a different location than its earlier home in physical memory. When a previously swapped-out application becomes active again and causes a large portion of its memory to move from disk back to physical memory, it is said to be 'swapped in.'

To simplify memory management, the operating system deals with memory in uniform units of a minimum size (usually 4K) called 'pages.' Swapping out a page is also called a 'pageout', and swapping in a page is called a 'pagein.' The policy used by the operating system to control memory management is often called the 'paging algorithm.'

Memory pages may store almost anything: code, data, even pieces of files. In fact, one of the useful features of virtual memory is that entire files may be 'memory mapped': a file on disk may be accessed as if it's a series of memory pages that have been swapped out to disk.

Further optimization is possible by allowing processes that need access to the same information (code, data, files) to share memory pages. Only when one of the processes sharing a particular memory page chooses to modify that page is a private copy created. This behavior is aptly named 'copy-on-write', and it allows many processes to efficiently share memory, with only the 'differences' allocated separately.

Not all memory may be swapped out. Some pages are 'wired down', meaning they may never leave physical memory during their lifetime. The memory pages that contain the operating system code that control the paging algorithm can never be swapped out, for instance (think about it). In fact, much of the operating system kernel is usually wired down.

Each active process needs some minimum portion of its memory pages to exist in physical memory in order to function efficiently. This portion is called the 'working set.' When the working set of all the active processes cannot fit in physical memory, the operating system must constantly shuttle pages to and from physical memory and the disk in a sort of game of musical chairs gone terribly wrong. A computer in this state is said to be 'thrashing.' The only cure is to either decrease the number active processes or buy more RAM.

The Buffer Cache

The second most important factor in Mac OS X's memory usage behavior is the buffer cache. The buffer cache is meant to speed up access to files on disk. Every time a piece of data is read from the disk, it may (optionally) be stored in memory. If that same piece of data is needed again in the near future, it may still be available in (physical) memory, saving a trip to the disk. Mac OS X implements a 'unified buffer cache', meaning that the buffer cache and the virtual memory system are combined. A page is a page is a page in Mac OS X.

The buffer cache affects RAM usage in ways that a Mac user may not expect. Heavy file i/o can use a lot of physical memory very quickly, potentially thinning out the physical memory presence of running applications. Poorly written applications may exacerbate this problem by using cached file i/o when it is not necessary, or even useful. An application that reads and parses a large file a single time during start-up should probably not use caching i/o, since it is not likely that the application will need those memory pages again some time in the near future before they're evicted from physical memory by another active process.

The Window Server

The final major player in the Mac OS X memory ballet is, perhaps surprisingly, the window server. The window server orchestrates access to the screen, including both low-level drawing and higher-level concepts like the movement and layering of windows.

As discussed in earlier articles, the Quartz display layer (of which the window server is an important part) models the screen as a layered compositing engine much like the layers in a graphics application like Photoshop. Each pixel has a red, green, and blue components, plus a so-called 'alpha channel' which determines its transparency, from totally opaque to totally invisible. The appearance of each pixel on the screen is determined by the composite of all the applications that have a pixel in that position. The window server calculates the composite of those pixels based on the layering and visibility of the participating pixels.

This provides the infrastructure for many of the 'pretty' effects in Mac OS X: the transparent drop-shadows on the windows, the translucent menus and title bars, etc. Each individual application only needs to worry about its own pixels, without regard for anything in front of or behind it. The window server then composites those pixels and draws the result to the screen. This makes application development simpler, leaving the 'hard work' of creating those nice on-screen effects to the operating system rather than each application.

Things get tricky again something on the screen has to move or change color (or transparency). The window server must re-composite every pixel changed by an application before the change can become visible to the user. And the compositing calculation needs not only the value of the changed pixel, but also the values of all other pixels that contribute to that position.

Think about the calculations necessary to do something as simply as move a window in Mac OS X. Every pixel of that window must be re-composited with every pixel of every application in each location for each new position of the window. Imagine a 500x300 pixel window (about 24 rows of 80 column text) moved 100 pixels to the right, with 5 other application windows behind it. That's about 15 million compositing calculations, each with 30 operands (red, green, blue, and alpha values for each contributing pixel from each application), all for moving a small window a few inches.

But wait, there's more. When something changes on the screen (a window moves, appears, or disappears), pixels belonging to other applications are revealed. Those pixels must, of course, be composited before they can be displayed, and those compositing calculations need all the pixel values for each application that has a pixel in the newly revealed area. Adding the compositing calculations associated with the newly revealed screen area in the moving window example above (and accounting for the transparent drop-shadow on the window) brings the grand total to almost 17 million 20-30 operand calculations!

Of course, this is a worst-case scenario that would only happen in a very naive implementation. Many optimization are possible. Solid pixels can abbreviate the number and difficulty of the compositing calculations tremendously, especially if the front-most pixel is solid.

But there's no getting around the fact that the window server still needs access to all the pixels of all the windows on the screen at all times, since it never knows when one of them will be required in a compositing calculation. Furthermore, this access needs to be very fast, since no one wants to wait while the OS reads pixels from a slow medium like disk.

Bali Basik (no Movements) Mac Os Catalina

Mac OS X provides the window server with fast access to pixels by making all windows 'buffered.' All the pixels of a buffered window are stored in in memory. When one of those pixels is needed in a compositing calculation, the window server simply reads the memory location corresponding to that pixel. It does not have to 'ask' the application for the pixel. In fact, an application may be entirely frozen and unresponsive, but its window can still be moved around, hidden, and revealed without any participation from the application. When an application wants to change its window, the changes are all sent through the window server, which updates the window's buffer to reflect the changes.

This is a big change from classic Mac OS, where each application drew directly to the screen, and any newly revealed portion of a window had to be re-drawn by the application that owned that window. Window buffering and compositing had to be implemented explicitly by each application that wanted it, and it was totally independent of any other running applications.

From a development perspective, buffered windows make applications easier to code. Drawing only has to be done once, after which portions of the window may be hidden and revealed without triggering any custom redraw code in the application. From a user's perspective, window buffering allows newly revealed windows to 'just be there,' with no visible redraw. Buffering also provides smooth, flicker-free window movement. Mac OS X even goes so far as to synchronize screen drawing with the sweep of the electron beam on CRTs to avoid flicker and 'tearing.'

Quartz's buffering is generally a good thing. It improves the visual quality of on-screen elements and it makes application development easier. But what does all of this have to do with memory usage?

We've already seen the potentially tremendous number of calculations required to composite items on the screen. These calculations are all done by the CPU in Mac OS X, and are not off-loaded to a video card's GPU. But surprisingly, this is not as large a CPU hit as you might expect, thanks to both the common case of totally opaque pixels and the speed of today's CPUs (yes, even on Macs). A few million calculations every once in a while may cause a some instantaneous load on the CPU, but it is not really a factor in the long term. That said, it would be great to have the video card do these calculations rather than the CPU—something I'm sure Apple is working on. In pathological cases (e.g. the famous shaking transparent terminal window) the CPU load can briefly become significant.

But it's the memory usage that's the real killer. Classic Mac OS applications only need to retain the essential information about each window: its size, features, and contents. Mac OS X applications have to retain the same information, of course, but remember that the window server also has to retain a complete memory image of every pixel in the window! Repeat this for every single window on the screen, and it adds up very quickly.

Classic Mac OS requires only a few kilobytes to store the basic structures that define a simple, empty window. In Mac OS X, the total memory required for even a completely empty window is proportional to its size, regardless of the nature of its contents (if any).

In my daily work as a web programmer, this difference is very apparent. The nature of the work requires many windows to be open at once: text editors, web browsers, terminals, etc. In classic Mac OS, each text editor window, for example, would require only a small amount of memory for the window itself, plus whatever backing store the editor keeps for the (ASCII) text in each window. In Mac OS X, each simple text editor window becomes a giant 32-bit image (in addition to the other information, of course). Multiply this phenomenon across all the other applications, each with many windows of their own, and you quickly run into trouble.

Take a look at this window list from a typical work day on my G4. The total memory used by window buffers alone is an astounding 120MB! And remember, this is before even accounting for things like, say, the memory required by the actual applications and the core OS itself!

(The possibility of decreasing the window server's memory usage—and, more importantly, decreasing memory bandwidth usage—by compressing inactive window buffers is intriguing, but this feature is not officially supported in 10.1.)

The window server uses the same virtual memory system as every other part of OS X, of course. That means that the memory that makes up each window buffer is eligible to be paged out just like any other piece of memory. This is where the real performance hit comes in. Attempting to manipulate a window that has had some or all of its window buffer pages swapped out is a painful, stuttering, disk grinding experience as the virtual memory system rapidly tries to bring those pages back into physical memory from disk (evicting other resident pages while doing so, of course).

I encounter this phenomenon on a grand scale every time I return to work on Monday, after a weekend spent connected to the G4 via the command line running non-GUI applications from the terminal. On those Monday mornings, almost every window buffer is likely to have been swapped out during the weekend. The disk grinding session that ensues when all the windows are paged back in as I start to use them again is quite spectacular.

Bali Basic (no Movements) Mac Os Download

And remember, this is a system with 768MB of RAM. But the OS doesn't care. My command line work over the weekend required significant memory (compiling, running web servers, etc.), and the OS provided it. None of the GUI applications were active over the weekend, so their pages were swapped out to disk to make way for the memory needs of the command line activity. This is to be construed as a feature.

So, buffered windows: friend or foe? In the end, they are a friend. The OS X window server provides a higher level of abstraction to applications. With more abstraction comes more resource usage. But 'increased abstraction' is essentially the definition of progress in the computer industry (otherwise we'd all still be programming in machine language). But like much of the rest of OS X, pervasive window buffering is slightly ahead of current state of hardware. Long-term, this is also a good thing, in my opinion. It's easier to wait for hardware to catch up to your ambitious (but clean) software architecture than it is to try to revamp your operating system in response to advances in hardware (just ask Apple ;-)

Swap File Optimizations

Since it is possible to use up almost any amount of physical RAM in OS X (I fill 768MB very quickly), further performance gains are still possible by moving the swap file(s) to a separate disk. No matter how much RAM you have, you will almost certainly hit the swap file eventually. The disk heads on the drive containing the OS and applications will already be scurrying around as they read and write application and OS code and data files. Making the swap file another stop on their frantic journey just adds yet another voice to the cacophony of disk grinding. Swap file access is especially painful since is usually interleaved with other disk operations: read a piece of application code from disk into memory, write an old memory page out to the swap file, read a piece of a data file into the buffer cache, write an old memory page out to the swap file, read a piece of application code from disk into memory...etc. etc. (Can you hear the grinding? :-)

Putting the swap file on a disk mechanism of its own allows the heads on that disk drive to benefit from better locality of reference (i.e. they don't have to move around as much), and frees the application and OS drive to concentrate on its tasks. There is no Apple-sanctioned way to move the swap file to another drive, and certainly no GUI for it. But brave users can follow the directions available on the web. Just be sure to make a total backup first, because you can potentially hose your entire system if you're not careful.

Bali Basic (no Movements) Mac Os Pro

I only have one disk at work, but at home I've moved my swap file from the 12GB 5,400 RPM drive that houses OS X and all its applications to my 45GB 7,200 RPM Mac OS 9 drive. The reduction in disk grinding has been substantial.

Simply moving the swap file to dedicated partition on the same disk is of much smaller benefit (if any). The disk heads still need to make many trips to and from the swap partition and the rest of the disk. And since Mac OS X uses individual swap files (rather than a dedicated swap file system), a separate swap partition is only likely to make a significant difference if the previous swap files were heavily fragmented on disk. (Note: I'm talking about 'external' fragmentation, where pieces of each swap file are spread all over the disk. The swap files themselves are always heavily 'internally' fragmented, meaning difference pieces of memory are spread sparsely within each swap file.)

Bali Basik (NO MOVEMENTS) Mac OS