5530 software performance is better than 5800?

Guys,
I'm a 5800XM user and and i found recently some of the feature of new released 5530XM is even better than 5800.
1. no kinetic scrolling in 5800. Really unhappy with this, Scrololing in 5800 is quite inconvenient, the V11 firmware is worst. Why there is no kinetic scrolling in 5800?
2. camera image quality. 3.2MP camera with carl zeis len, dual flash. Image quality i not comparable with 5530. 5800 image quality is really bad for me. The image capture is like a bit blue'ish. I wash an video on youtube, the image capture by 5530 camera is really much more better than 5800, it's quality is very good.
OMG, i'm sad with this. Can anyone tell me what is the reason of this? Nokia's developer, any problem with the firmware or it is a hardware problem. 5800XM cost higher than 5530XM.

Gary Scotland wrote:
or Bean freeware also
With the following limitations (for Word Users)

Similar Messages

Why Flash player performance is better than Player comes with Adobe air ?

I built an Adobe Air application that played Video and working awesome on PC. now when i tried to start working on Tablet Version, What I found is
1. When i played 1 MB video file from Local , Audio and Video are not in sync and very disturbing. (not able to play a file more tha 2 Mb)
I created only video player using OSMF in the app. there is nothing else that can hamper the performace.
2. When i played same video using Web based Flex Application. It works perfectly
3. I tried with StageWebView in Adobe air and Results are equivelent to Web Version.
I am using Adobe Air 3.1 which is shipped with Flash Player 11.1, Then where things went Wrong.
Why I can't get the same performance in Air App?
IS AIR THE RIGHT CHOICE TO BUILD MOBILE APP?
IS THAT POSSIBLE TO GET NATIVE PLAYER/WEB VERSION LIKE PERFOMANCE (OR CLOSED TO) USING ADOBE AIR?
In addition,
I tried to read about encoding and other white papers. But basic thing that troubled me is, If Web Version is fine then why Air is not able to give the same performance.
Hardware configuration : 1G processer,
OS : Android 4.0.3
Thank you in advance.

What games are you trying? Which browser do you use and have you tried an alternative browser to see if they are also impacted?

Any other office software that is better than text edit???

Is there any software that is the same as Microsoft Word or something similar to it for MacBooks????

Gary Scotland wrote:
or Bean freeware also
With the following limitations (for Word Users)

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
Has anyone experienced this?

Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?

does FCP perform better than adobe premiere elements on a MacBook Pro?
Background:
* just trying to decide what to go for re video editing app with more features than iMovie
* last time I'd tried Adobe Premiere Elements on my MacBook (but it was before I had an SSD) the performance was not good - it was sluggish to the point I really didn't want to use it
* so this question is just about whether in general FCP X performs better on a Mac (you'd think it would no, as it's made/optimized for a Mac)
My MacBook:
Processor 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Elements is essentially an amateur app and Premiere a professional one similar to the discontinued Final Cut Pro 7.
FCP X is a radical new approach to editing which like Marmite, you either love or hate.
It is probably between the 2 in capabitlity but much closer to Premiere.
Some might say it was better than Premiere, whilst other long standing broadcast editors would disagree.
It all depends on your standpoint and I am trying to give an unbiased appraisal.
Some of the techniques it uses are way ahead of all other apps and this is what worries people who have an established way of working, though as I mentioned in another post, there are a few omissions which have upset those editors.
Some might say (echoes of Jeremy Clarkson) that FCP X is the most advanced editing app on the planet albeit with a few teething troubles.

Any download software better than Folx ?

Does anybody know a software that is better and faster than FOLX for Mac ?? I downloaded about 2GB by Folx a few days ago and now It doesnt allow me anymore which means I have to download with Safari .... at a very slow speed T.T
I tried trial Speed download but seems like my network can make it faster huhuhu.
thanks first !

Try iGetter. Used it for years. Always worked a treat for me.
http://www.igetter.net/

What's better than Illustrator?

I've been using Illustrator for many years and several versions. My usage is nominal and occasional/once a week, and I don't get very sophisticated for my needs, so it has been OK so far. I do not do commercial work but know Ai is the "de-facto std".
But I read this forum often and see many criticisms of Ai and I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
I see JET and others here make great use of Illy but also criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things.
So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai? Is it worth having a second program and learning (tho I suspect the learning curve should be easy as they do similar things but have different GUI). Or replacing Illy with something?
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else? I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.

I see JET and others here...criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I can't speak for "and others", but since I'm the only one you mention by name:
If you've already deemed the criticism justifiable, then you must already know what that criticism says. When I criticize Illustrator, I don't just say "Illustrator is crap" and leave it at that, unsupported. I'm careful to explain myself with facts pertinent to the context of the discussion. I actually own and know how to use the other programs to which I compare. I've often posted lists of comparitive features.
I've always used my real name here and sign all my posts with my initials. So finding my comments is not difficult.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things. So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Other than the broadly general things you just mentioned, what program do you want to compare, and for doing what? Surely you're not asking someone to do an exhaustive feature-by-feature comparison between Illustrator and all similar programs in this one thread?
All you've said about what you use Illustrator for is that your use is nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical. Mine isn't. Commerical graphics has been my livelihood for over 40 years. Vector-based illustration is both a speciality and a passion.
I...knowAi is the "de-facto std"
"Defacto standard" is self-fulfilling. It's effectively equivalent to saying "More people use Illustrator because more people use Illustrator."
So what? More people ride Vespa scooters than KTM motorcycles. But which one would you call "professional quality"? You can use either one to pick up a gallon of orange juice at the corner store. But if you enter an enduro, the KTM will get the job done with alot less stress.
The myth is that most software buyers choose the best. That's as naive as the faith that most voters do.
Illustrator has been slothfully resting on its "defacto standard" haunches since the dark ages (AKA the 80s). "Defacto standard" be hanged.
I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
Okay. What issues? State something specific and users actually familiar with other programs can compare.
This is the 21st century. There's really little new under the sun here. A 2D drawing program is just an interface pasted on top of mostly the same old geometric functionality. The competitive advantage goes to the offering that best (easy) and most fully (robust) empowers the user. The multiplication of easy and robust yields elegance. That's a term I've never applied to Illustrator. Illustrator is one of the oldest of the bunch, lounging under the sun for so long it's at risk of skin cancer. Yet it still fails to provide basic functionality users of other drawing programs have taken for granted for decades.
Examples that may be germane to your casual, non-commerical use? Try these things in Illustrator:
Star Tool: Draw a star. Now change the number of points it has.
Arc Tool: Draw 36 degrees of a circular arc.
Label that star with a dimension.
Distribute a group of different objects along a curve.
Uniformly space Blend steps along a non-uniform curve.
Attach a Blend to a closed path and have the first/last instances properly positioned.
Knife Tool: Cut across an open unfilled path.
Connect a text label to an object that stays connected when you move it.
Paste a simple graphic into a text string so that it flows with the text.
Perform a Find/Replace on carriage returns.
Round Corners: Apply it to an accute or obtuse angle and have it actually yield the radius you specify.
Crop a raster image.
Rotate something. Go back later and find out what its rotation angle is.
Pathfinders: Use them without wrecking existing fills/strokes.
I could go on (and have). How long a list do you want? All the features/functions associated with the above basic operations (and many more) are substandard, half-baked, or even non-existent in Illustrator. This is "professional"-grade software? No, it's largely consumerish rubbish sold at exhorbitant prices just because it's the "defacto standard."
Is it worth having a second program and learning...
Obviously, it is to me (and a third, and a fourth, and...). As I've said many times in this forum, I don't know how anyone can legitimately claim to compare two programs if they've only got workaday familiarity with one.
As with any other endeavor, the more drawing programs you're comfortable with, the less arduous it is to pick up another, because you tend to pick up on the underlying principles involved, as opposed to just becomming habituated to a particular program's command locations and procedures by rote.
But you've been using AI for "many years" and find it to be "OK". So if you're happy with it, use it.
I have a cheap, consumerish Ryobi table saw and it's "OK." But I didn't pay a professional-grade price for it, either. And I'm sure not going to write glorious reviews on it, call it "professional," and get all fearfully brand-loyal defensive about it if someone dares suggest I might ought to learn to use a different one. My use of it, like yours, is merely occasional. But I also presently need to build a TV cabinet, and I'm dreading it. If I were to open a cabinet shop, I'd be much more discriminating, and would do my own homework to make an informed decision.
Or replacing Illy with something?
One doesn't have to "replace." There's nothing any more wrong with using more than one 2D drawing program than there is with using more than one 3D modeling program, or raster imaging program, or page layout program, or word processor, or video edting program, or....
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else?
That depends on what one is doing with it. Not knowing that, I can again only offer generalities that matter to me: If you've only ever used one program of a particulat kind, you're rather in the dark regarding functionality that you may be missing that may be important to you. (Second-degree ignorance: You don't know what you don't know.) If you're mission-dependent upon that one program, you're also kind of captive to the whims and agenda of its vendor.
That very well may not matter to you, given your nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical use. And if so, that's fine.
I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
But you just said you've been reading a bunch of posts here which mention other programs.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Only you can answer that about your time. Time is all any of us have.
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.
No offense, but frankly it sounds like you're just not motivated enough to do your own homework. If you are sufficiently motivated, visit the websites of other drawing program vendors. Read the features lists. Dowload the demos, read the documentation, and try them out. Visit the programs' user forums. Or, if it's really not that important to you, don't.
If you've got questions about specific functionality and/or specific programs, be more specific about what you do (or want to do).
JET

Is Intel better than Power PC?

Hi
Is Intel better than Power PC?
The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1G Ram

Daimon,
I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
Good Luck,
-j

Reco for 3rd party Chroma-keying software (Ultimatte or better)

Does anyone have any experience of working with Ultimatte AdvantEdge Chroma Key Software? I'm looking for something that will key nicely in post and perform better than the built-in doo-dah in our beloved FCP (not that there's anything too wrong with that). Meanwhile footage-wise, everything is stunningly lit (flat where it should flat, even where it should be even, excellent color temperature, etc). It couldn't be shot any better. God, it is soooo beautiful. And the costumes, simply breathtaking... wonderful color balance and choices. This was shot and designed by true creative geniuses.
But I digress. So, if anyone has an info about Advantage or any other chroma-keying software drop me a note.
Oh, and please no "should ofs" I'm just the bleedin' editor. And by the way... did I mention the footage is stunningly beautiful?
Thanks

I have five keyers including Ultimatte, which is pricey.
I prefer dvmatte pro from dvxgarage, which isn't pricey

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that make it worth buying?

Is the Mountain Lion so much better than the Snow Leopard that I'm currently using and worth the money to buy it? Is it more or less confusing to operate?

OS X 10.7-18.0+ will NOT run any current PPC based programs your running.
http://roaringapps.com/apps:table
If you have a MacPro like your signature says (the tower, not the laptop) then it's not going to have much of a performance loss as say the MacBook Pro's will.
Older, less powerful Mac's have performance losses with the newer OS X Lions, it might be best to stick with 10.6.8 on a older machine until it drops, then spend the money on all new software on a newer machine instead.
One guy was here today and had a 2007 Intel Core 2 Duo and it was struggling to run OS X Mountain Lion, Chrome and Photoshop.
It just didn't have the hardware horsepower for all that bloatware.
My advice if it's not a top end iMac or MacPro, then 2010 is the cut-off point, those 2010 machines and earlier are likely better off on 10.6.8 max.
It all depends upon one's perception of performance really.

Why is illustrator better than corel?

hello forumers.
im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel ;-( ,i need some facts why illustrator is better than corel so i can shove his face in it if possible.
VIVA illi
thank you very much.

Do not, I repeat do not, ask James or Scott or Hans.
Indeed.
Only ask Jacob, who is still using a four-version out-of-date copy of Illustrator and who tries to personify it as a female idol.
If the comparison is to be "fair" (which it clearly will not be, at least from your perspective), it should compare Corel Draw X4 to Illustrator CS3 or CS4. Release dates being what they were, X4 would more legitimately be considered Draw's answer to CS3; since it long predates CS4.
Talking about earlier versions of either program is not very meaningful, except in the sense of history of development. When I compare the release histories of Draw, FreeHand, Canvas, and Illustrator, Illustrator comes in an often-embarrassing last in terms of features long taken-for-granted in other programs.
im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel...i need some facts [that] I can shove his face..
Shove in your boss's face? For presenting you an opportunity to escape fearful dependency upon a single software?
i need the pros and cons...to outline to him why illustrator is better...
Why don't you simply welcome this opportunity to actually know something about that which you claim a completely bogus "preference"?
Were you at all interested in gaining input that would help you help your boss reach a rational and objective decision, you would at least describe something about the kind of work your boss pays you to do. What kind of business employs you? Is the Macintosh platform even relevant to your boss's business market? How large a workgroup is affected by the software choice? What kind of artwork does that workgroup produce? How is it delivered? What are its initial content sources? Who are the end-users of the artwork? In how many different ways is it delivered, and in what formats?
Yet here you are, soliciting predisposed "why Illustrator is 'better' than Draw" advice from a handful of users who, so far, admit themselves having either no, or practically no, experience with Draw! If that's not blind-leading-the-blind, I don't know what is.
You are by admission predisposed toward Illustrator, even though you are not at all equipped to say why. Reason is pointless with so irrational a mindset. Since no one responding yet seems to actually know anything about Draw, I will instead offer some ammunition I hope your boss uses to see if you are even objective enough to consider it.
The following is a just-off-the-top list. Should you actually try to counter it, you should be prepared for more:
General:
Lower cost, both initially and in upgrades
Better support for non-current versions
Faster performance
Better support for several vertical-market industries (signage, embroidery, engineering-related)
More robust CAD and more business-centric import/export formats
Better multiple page implementation
Better-organized interface
Highly-customizable workspace
Features:
User-defined drawing scales
Reliable snaps
Dimension tools
Callout tools
Connector lines
Flowchart Tools
No-nonsense, 2D vector face extrusion
Live shape primitives
Smart Drawing tools (freehand shape recognition)
Virtual Segment tool
Ability to properly cut/crop vector and raster content
Contour tool (multiple parallels)
Export selection only
Barcodes
Print Merge
Bundle for Output Bureau
Scan directly into Draw
Trim (not merely mask) vector artwork to any path
Fit Text To Path
Text stats
Export artwork as Type 1 font.
Lens Fills (live details)
Live Perspective
Object Data (spreadsheet-formatted database of user-defined object data fields)
Fillet / Chamfer / Scallop
User-defined Arrowheads
Shared Features Better Implemented in Draw:
Mesh Grads
Dynamic Guides (with increment snaps)
Independent control over Snaps for Guides, Grid, Objects, Dynamic Grids
Property Bar (far more sensible and useable than AI's poorly-designed and buggy Control Panel)
Status Bar with context-sensitive instructions
Elastic Mode (vs. AI's Reshape tool)
Add/remove/line/curve/cusp/symmetrical curve commands properly implemented for all nodes (points) in a selected path
Logarithmic and Symmetrical spirals
Macro Recording (vs. AI Actions)
Envelopes (retract envelope handles without wrecking artwork)
Old-Saw Arguements Based on Overstatement, if not Myths:
Adobe's cross-app "integration" is more hype than substantive advantage.
Illustrator's text handing is worst among Adobe apps and worst-of-class among its direct competitors.
Draw opens and creates PDFs just fine.
Claims of AI superiority regarding importing of raster images is practically immaterial. In fact, Corel Draw's interaction with Corel PhotoPaint is at least as "smooth and seamless" as AI/PS, if not more so.
Using vector artwork created in Draw (or any other mainstream Bezier drawing program) in page-layout programs is no more difficult than using AI. This stuff has been being done for decades.
Again, this is just a beginning. You do yourself a huge disservice by declaring (let alone attempting to defend) a "preference" to the only choice with which you have experience (and evidently only beginning experience at that). That's true regardless of which program you claim to "favor." How can one, with any trace of intellectual honesty, claim to have a "favorite" of anything--when one has no exposure to any of the considered alternatives?
Since you already have Illustrator, you should absolutely welcome your Boss's willingness to provide you a current copy of Corel Draw. Here's an opportunity for you--at no personal cost--to actually learn something about another program; to potentially have some clue as to what you're talking about when you claim to "prefer" one over the other; to benefit from knowing more than one particular tool, and to overcome the fear of learning your way around more than one offering among similar programs. For all you know, you may be arguing against the program you would actually end up preferring.
I could also build a bullet list of better-than-Draw AI features. It would not be as long as its opposite. Nor would the AI-favoring listings be as broadly practical.
Fact is, anyone can build a bullet list to favor any of them. (Just look at the sides of the boxes, or each vendor's self-serving "competitive comparisons" on their respective websites.) Fact is, all of them are really rather mediocre; mostly 20+ years-old technology.
You really should have no axe to grind in this, unless you can state something specific to your work that strongly favors the relatively few functional advantages of AI.
JET

Why is WAP54G RPT MODE better than WRE54G?

Hello,
I have a project to expand a wireless network to another building with two floors. The proximity is close (literally only 15 feet between the walls), but only clients with great antennas/wifi cards would be able to reach the router in the main building, so I want to expand the wireless signal into the new building. The new building is two floors high, has no dropped ceiling or other ceiling/wall access, there is no conduit available between buildings, and no feasible way to run a wire, so my only real choice is to expand the signal coverage from the main building to the new building via wifi. I have read many posts on many different forums covering this topic. I understand that having multiple WRE54G repeaters has created reliability issues for some people. Too bad, because these are nice, discrete little units and would be ideal for what I need to do. I have seen several people recommend WAP54G units in repeater mode (no hardwired connection to the main router) in place of WRE54G units. What is the difference? Are they technically doing the same thing, and do you lose bandwidth by half with either unit? Is it just that the WAP54G has been more reliable? Not that bandwidth is my most important concern, reliability is my main concern, but I do have to deal with the issue of mounting these high on interior walls. Does the WRE54G v3 exhibit the same problematic issues that previous versions 1 and 2 did? I have a WRE54G v3 that I installed, and upgraded the firmware. I have to admit, setting it up with a WRT54G was problematic, but once it was set up, it hasn't lost its link since (just going on one week now). I do not have WEP enabled yet, I'm just using MAC address filtering from the WRT54G. My proposed configuration is:
WAP54G in main building, just inside the outer wall.
WRE54G in the 2nd building on the first floor.
WRE54G in the 2nd building on the second floor.
Both WRE54G devices would directly connect to the WAP54G, one would not connect through another. Does anyone see any potential problems? Also, we have an extra WRT300N that was donated that we were just going to use as a WAP by deconflicting the IP with the router and turning off DHCP. Any problems using the WRE54G with the WRT300N?
Thanks in advance to all that reply for your experience and insight.

Thanks again for your response. It is not practical to run an Ethernet cable from building one to building two, that's why I'm finding this to be a little extra complicated. The conduit situation is a total mess and they left no pull-throughs. Outdoor routing is not an option either. Thanks for your comment on the umbrella coverage characteristic, I had not heard that before but that will definitely be taken into consideration with our placement of the client-specific WAP. It's not a simple two-story building - the first floor is longer than the second floor, and the extra large space on the first floor is at one end and is where most of the WAP clients will be located. We'll be doing a lot of testing.
After performing more exhaustive research on these devices, I have decided to use the entry-level small business line - like a WAP54GP - because I need to have reliable wireless bridging between buildings one and two. However, everything I've read about units in this category shows that the N+gr model WG 102 has the same capabilities and performs noticeably better, especially at extended range. It's just a little more difficult to configure, but most people are very impressed with it. I purchased a WAP54GP anyway for testing purposes and will be able to compare the two in actual use.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

5530 software performance is better than 5800?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for