Broadband a lot slower than it used to be.

Hi,
Looking for some help and/or advice please. My broadband had been running fine for months (tbh lost track could be a year or two) maxing out at about 750 kBps = 6MB when downloading. I got the letter in from BT a couple of months ago suggesting they were gonna improve the service countrywide and I should get some kind of benefit in speeds. Not too long after that my max download speed dropped by 75% to around 1.5MB. I found this forum and read about many others having similar problems so I figured it was a side effect of the work being done on the lines and just to be patient. After a few weeks my speed went back up to around 3MB which i hoped was a step in the right direction. It remained this way for a few weeks then suddenly dropped back down to 1.5MB a few days ago. Unfortunately it has remained this way since then.
I have ran the check on the BT page where you input your number and they tell you what kinda connection you should expect, it came back as around 4.5MB.
I ran the speedtest on the BT site and got the following results :
1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
   Download Speed
   1578 Kbps
0 Kbps   2000 Kbps
Max Achievable Speed
Download speedachieved during the test was - 1578 Kbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speedsis 800-2000 Kbps.
Additional Information:
Your DSL Connection Rate :1776 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 445 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP Profile for your line is - 1500 Kbps
The throughput of Best Efforts (BE) classes achieved during the test is - 20.82:20.1:59.08 (SBE:NBEBE)
These figures represent the ratio while sententiously passing Sub BE, Normal BE and Priority BE marked traffic.
The results of this test will vary depending on the way your ISP has decided to use these traffic classes.
2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.
   Upload Speed
   364 Kbps
0 Kbps   445 Kbps
Max Achievable Speed
>Upload speed achieved during the test was - 364 Kbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 445 Kbps
We were unable to identify any performance problem with your service at this time.
Which obviously agrees with what I am getting.
I dont have a BT hub in use at the mo so here are the equivalent (I hope) details from my modem/router ...ehm...thingy (technical jargon )
Modem Status
Connection Status   Connected
Us Rate (Kbps)   445
Ds Rate (Kbps)   1776
US Margin   22
DS Margin   29
Trained Modulation   ADSL2Plus
LOS Errors   0
DS Line Attenuation   30
US Line Attenuation   19
Peak Cell Rate   1049 cells per sec
CRC Rx Fast   0
CRC Tx Fast   0
CRC Rx Interleaved   8
CRC Tx Interleaved   0
Path Mode   Fast Path
There has been no major changes that i can think off in the last while and when these readings were taken my modem had been up and connected for over 90 hours.
Would someone be able to explain, advise about and possibly help me sort out this problem pls.
Thanks if you managed to read this far

@robo878
Thanks very much for the info and help robo, not sure I fully understand what it means but certainly a lot more than I did before I posted. TY I will have a look into getting it switched to see what difference that makes.
@imjolly (great name think my fav char was the 'polis' with the flying goggles assuming you mean the rev i.m.jolly)
Thank you too for your reply. I think you may well be right about the letter, just remember it being about a possible 100% increase or such, which would make sense going from a possible 8 to 20MB. At the moment I am just connected via an extension cable to the standard socket with a splitter for my phone and my modem. I have found the video on the BT re the test socket, is that worth giving a go? My phone is a cordless unfortunately so may well not be ideal/accurate but I am getting a bit of 'fuzz' and a couple of slight 'clicks'. Don't know anything about line noise and what it should be so sorry I can't tell you more.

Similar Messages

HT2463 Since I installed my new d6300 netgear my downloads on Apple TV have taken a lot longer than previously using a billion router. Do I need to do something with the net gear set up?

Since I installed my new d6300 netgear my downloads on Apple TV have taken a lot longer than previously using a billion router. Do I need to do something with the net gear set up?

Just connect the new iPod to your computer and setup the iPod via iTunes (instead of via wifi).
If you want to copy all the infor from an old iPod touch to the inew iPod see:
iOS: Transferring information from your current iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch to a new device

IPad Air wifi sync a lot slower than iPhone 5s?

I just got my new iPhone 5s yesterday and found out that its wifi syncing to itunes is a lot faster than the iPad Air I bought a few days ago. Actually iPad Air wifi syncing is so much slower than iPhone 5s, almost half speed, just as slow as wifi syncing with my iPhone 4, is this normal?
I've tested another iPad Air of my friend, and found out that his new iPad is as slow as mine. Anyone know WHY? Is there anything / settings we're missing?
I have the latest AirPort Extreme as wifi router.

It's not much help but here is another thread with similar problems.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/23986417#23986417

PC running 3d Games slower than it used to

i recently moved my pc down to the basement and now it can't play a 3d game without slowing down for more than 10 minutes. It can still play older 2d games like Majesty, but just the other day I was able to play Battlefield 2 and Mount & Blade on full graphics for as long as i wanted. Now it slows down as if I were playing an internet game and experiencing lag, but I am only playing offline. I've tried Disk Defrag, changing outlets, cleaning Temp Files, clearing out unused programs. I'm at the point of where all I can think of is to erase everything and start over, but would hate to do that and have the problem return. Anyone know what is wrong?

Gokengt, are you using the integrated video or a dedicated video card? If you are running a dedicated video card, you may be able to adjust the fan speed. I agree with Dave that it sounds like a heat problem. In many basements there is not sufficient airflow to cool the computer.
Signature:
HP TouchPad - 1.2 GHz; 1 GB memory; 32 GB storage; WebOS/CyanogenMod 11(Kit Kat)
HP 10 Plus; Android-Kit Kat; 1.0 GHz Allwinner A31 ARM Cortex A7 Quad Core Processor ; 2GB RAM Memory Long: 2 GB DDR3L SDRAM (1600MHz); 16GB disable eMMC 16GB v4.51
HP Omen; i7-4710QH; 8 GB memory; 256 GB San Disk SSD; Win 8.1
HP Photosmart 7520 AIO
++++++++++++++++++
**Click the Thumbs Up+ to say 'Thanks' and the 'Accept as Solution' if I have solved your problem.**
Intelligence is God given; Wisdom is the sum of our mistakes!
I am not an HP employee.

Query performance on RAC is a lot slower than single instance

I simply followed the steps provided by oracle to install a rac db of 2 nodes.
The performce on Insertion (java, thin ojdbc) is pretty much the same compared to a single instance on NFS
However the performance on the select query is very slow compared to single instance.
I have tried using different methods for the storage configuration (asm with raw, ocfs2) but the performance is still slow.
When I shut down one instance, leaving only one instance up, the query performance is very fast (as fast as one single instance)
I am using rhel5 64 bit (16G of physical memory) and oracle 11.1.0.6 with patchset 11.1.0.7
Could someone help me how to debug this problem?
Thanks,
Chau
Edited by: user638637 on Aug 6, 2009 8:31 AM

top 5 timed foreground events:
DB CPU: times 943(s), %db time (47.5%)
cursor.pin S wait on X: wait(13940), time (321s), avg wait(23ms), %db time (16.15%)
direct path read (95,436), times (288), avg watie (3ms), %db ime (14.51%)
IPC send completion sync: wait(546,712), times(149s), avg wait (0), %db time (7.49%)
gc cr multi block request: waits (7574), teims (78) avg wait (10 ms), %db time (4.0)
another thing i see is the "avg global cache cr block flush time (ms): is 37.6 msThe DB CPU Oracle metric is the amount of CPU time (in microseconds) spent on database user-level calls.
You should check your sql statement from report and tuning them.
- Check from Execute Plan.
- If not index, determine to use index.
SQL> set autot trace explain
SQL> sql statement;
cursor: pin S wait on X.
A session waits on this event when requesting a mutex for sharable operationsrelated to pins (such as executing a cursor), but the mutex cannot be granted becauseit is being held exclusively by another session (which is most likely parsing the cursor).
use variable SQL , avoid dynamic sql
http://blog.tanelpoder.com/2008/08/03/library-cache-latches-gone-in-oracle-11g/
check about memory MEMORY_TARGET initialization parameter.
By the way you have high "DB CPU"(47.5%), you should tune about your sql statement (check sql in report and tune)
Good Luck

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Flash player 10.1 slower than 10

At least, that's how it is on my secondary computers. On my Dell Inspiron B120, flash 10.1 latest is like a train wreck when it comes to playing Youtube videos in full screen. Disabling hardware acceleration helped a little, but this shouldn't be happening as I uninstalled 10.1 and installed an archived version of Flash 10 with much better playback AND with h/w acceleration enabled. The laptop uses XP SP3 and Firefox.
Simply put, Flash 10.1 feels a lot slower than 10 on my Dell laptop (1.4 GHz celeron-M, intel 915g video, 512 mb ram)
And there's another odd but minor problem I seem to be having with is flash animations on my main computer and any other computer/laptop I have using Flash 10.1. I get this alternating 'lag' every few seconds; it's like the computer is dropping frames because the CPU can't keep up. I could completely understand this, but this is happening on practically any flash animation I throw at the computer. I just tested a flash movie (SWF format) on my main computer (2.8 GHz AMD Athlon x2 240; 2 gb ram, Windows 7 x64, Firefox) and I get this irritating choppy lag here and there. Again, with the previous Flash version 10, I did NOT have this problem AT ALL. Everything was silky smooth; the only benefit I'm getting from Flash 10.1 is x264 hardware acceleration for my ATI Radeon 4200 HD. Before anyone asks, all of my computers were using the latest flash version AND video drivers prior to these tests.
I am VERY frustrated with these problems as I've posted a similar thread twice now in the past. No one seems to be answering or helping me with this; Those that do reply simply claim that they're having the same problem.
Adobe, please look into this problem. Eventually Youtube and several other sites will force me to upgrade my laptop to Flash 10.1.

Has Adobe fixed the problems with version 10,1,82,76 of flash player ?
I compared it and found nothing but problems.
I then uninstalled 10,1,82,76 and rolled back to 10,0,12,36 which works fine on Firefox and Opera but I can't install 10,0,12,36 on Exploer or Chrome
it keeps telling me there is a new version even when I try to install it from local drive with a archived version.
With all the complaints about 10,1,82,76 and the lack of response from Adobe on any fixes I will not be using Adobe auto updates until I let some
other poor guinea pigs suffer all the bugs and problems first.
You would expect a large company to have better development and testing before imposing buggy upgardes on us.

Startup slower that it used to be...Jargon translator needed

can anyone decipher this console jargon and tell me if there are any issues during startup.
My mbp seems to be starting up a lot slower that it used to be.
and any suggestions of how to freshen up my speedy startup would be great.
---start of jargon---
29/04/2010 15:53:00 com.apple.launchd[1] * launchd[1] has started up. *
29/04/2010 15:53:25 com.apple.WindowServer[57] Thu Apr 29 15:53:25 tom-cooks-macbook-pro.local WindowServer[57] <Error>: kCGErrorFailure: Set a breakpoint @ CGErrorBreakpoint() to catch errors as they are logged.
29/04/2010 15:53:32 com.apple.launchd.peruser.501[83] (com.apple.ReportCrash) Falling back to default Mach exception handler. Could not find: com.apple.ReportCrash.Self
29/04/2010 15:53:40 com.apple.launchd.peruser.501[83] (com.apple.Kerberos.renew.plist[103]) Exited with exit code: 1
29/04/2010 15:53:44 com.apple.launchd.peruser.501[83] ([email protected][107]) Exited with exit code: 1
29/04/2010 15:53:50 Quicksilver[115] [Quicksilver -[NSApplication(Info) wasLaunchedAtLogin]]: parentProcessInfoDict = '"LSCheckInTime*" = 2010-04-29 15:53:25 +0100;
"LSBackgroundOnly" = 0;
"FileCreator" = "lgnw";
"CFBundleIdentifier" = "com.apple.loginwindow";
"LSSystemWillDisplayDeathNotification" = 0;
"Attributes" = 69632;
"CFBundleExecutable" = "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/Contents/MacOS/loginwindow";
"LSUIPresentationMode" = 0;
"IsCheckedInAttr" = 1;
"PSN" = 4097;
"LSUIElement" = 1;
"CFBundleName" = "loginwindow";
"CFBundleVersion" = 101744640;
"BundlePath" = "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app";
"pid" = 35;
"FileType" = "APPL";
"Flavor" = 3;
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:05 Quicksilver[115] Prevented load of unidentified action from bundle Core Support.qsplugin because the action's featureLevel (set from its Info.plist) is higher than NSApp's current featureLevel. This is not neccessarily an error. Sometimes this mechanism is used to prevent unstable actions from loading.
29/04/2010 15:54:09 Quicksilver[115] [Quicksilver -[NSApplication(Info) wasLaunchedAtLogin]]: parentProcessInfoDict = '"LSCheckInTime*" = 2010-04-29 15:53:25 +0100;
"LSBackgroundOnly" = 0;
"FileCreator" = "lgnw";
"CFBundleIdentifier" = "com.apple.loginwindow";
"LSSystemWillDisplayDeathNotification" = 0;
"Attributes" = 69632;
"CFBundleExecutable" = "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/Contents/MacOS/loginwindow";
"LSUIPresentationMode" = 0;
"IsCheckedInAttr" = 1;
"PSN" = 4097;
"LSUIElement" = 1;
"CFBundleName" = "loginwindow";
"CFBundleVersion" = 101744640;
"BundlePath" = "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app";
"pid" = 35;
"FileType" = "APPL";
"Flavor" = 3;
29/04/2010 15:54:23 osascript[134] Error loading /Library/ScriptingAdditions/Adobe Unit Types.osax/Contents/MacOS/Adobe Unit Types: dlopen(/Library/ScriptingAdditions/Adobe Unit Types.osax/Contents/MacOS/Adobe Unit Types, 262): no suitable image found. Did find:
/Library/ScriptingAdditions/Adobe Unit Types.osax/Contents/MacOS/Adobe Unit Types: no matching architecture in universal wrapper
29/04/2010 15:54:37 [0x0-0x10010].com.apple.Safari[122] Thu Apr 29 15:54:37 tom-cooks-macbook-pro.local Safari[122] <Error>: kCGErrorIllegalArgument: CGSFlushSurfaceWithOptions
29/04/2010 15:54:37 [0x0-0x10010].com.apple.Safari[122] Thu Apr 29 15:54:37 tom-cooks-macbook-pro.local Safari[122] <Error>: kCGErrorFailure: Set a breakpoint @ CGErrorBreakpoint() to catch errors as they are logged.
---end of jargon---

Maybe because you've installed Quicksilver, which is responsible for all that stuff you posted. The computer will start slower with each bit of software you install and launch at startup. If you want quick startups remove all the third-party startup items you have installed - like Quicksilver - or accept the slower startup for the features you desire.
In addition to the above and any other third-party software that launches during startup you can try cleaning caches and repairing the drive and permissions:
Repairing the Hard Drive and Permissions
Boot from your OS X Installer disc. After the installer loads select your language and click on the Continue button. When the menu bar appears select Disk Utility from the Installer menu (Utilities menu for Tiger and Leopard.) After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list. In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive. If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the installer. Now restart normally.
If DU reports errors it cannot fix, then you will need Disk Warrior and/or Tech Tool Pro to repair the drive. If you don't have either of them or if neither of them can fix the drive, then you will need to reformat the drive and reinstall OS X.
To clean caches download a utility such as Tinkertool System or Snow Leopard Cache Cleaner to remove all system, user, and font caches (a restart is required immediately afterwards.)

Urgent: WAD performance is very slow than query performance

Hi,
If i execute the report(using query with variables) which contains 8,50,000 records in WAD then its taking more than 900 seconds and say Connection timed out at the end.
If i execute the same query in Query designer using Web browser then it will take 400 seconds to show all the data in hierarchy or tabular view.
I've done tuning using RSRT on query read mode and persistent mode etc..
Can you please help me?
THanks in advance. Points will be given...
Reg,
Varun

Varun,
Did you ever solve the performance issue of WAD report. We are having the same issue of WAD performance lot slower than executing just as a Query.
Thanks

Possible answer to LR 2.6 & 2.7 Seeming to run slower than earlier versions

I just downloaded and unpgraded from LR 2.6 to 2.7 on a Windows Vista 64-bit machine. Version 2.6 seemed to run a lot slower than 2.5. When I read the LR2.7 readme file on the download page I noticed one of the known issues is that at least ver. 2.7 runs slower when there are lots of files in the recycle bin. after I upgraded I emptied the recycle bin (Of almost 3000 files), and yes indeed performance did improve - dramatically. This also improved performance on LR 3 Beta 2.

Thanks for the suggestions. I have tried each idea in the order suggested. Unfortunately I have not yet solved the problem. In some circumstances, with certain paper profiles and no other color management in place, I get faulty prints but they have large areas of solid color in areas where there is a large amounts of color saturation in the original image. The faulty image below is printed to plain letter-sized paper ar Normal Quality. One clarification I wish to make is that my HP printer driver was not specifically a 64-bit driver, but rather 32-bit/64-bit driver compatable for Win 7.
I may try completely uninstalling LR before reinstalling, instead of a "repair-install" but I am still open to other suggestions.
Camron

My 24" iMac seems to gets the spinning colored ball a lot, seems it is running slow a lot more than it did before any suggestion?

My 24” iMac seems to gets the spinning colored ball a lot, seems it is running slow a lot more than it did before any suggestion?

Open Activity Monitor in Applications>Utilities, select All Processes & sort on CPU%, any indications there?
How much RAM & free space do you have also, click on the Memory & Disk Usage Tabs.
In the Memory tab, are there a lot of Pageouts?

I'm using an older mac (2008 iMac). Things were fetting slow and I used a program called DupZapper to get rid of a lot of duplicate files. It worked and my computer is running better. The only problem is now InDesign crashed at startup. I have the ori

I'm using an older mac (2008 iMac). Things were getting slow and I used a program called DupZapper to get rid of a lot of duplicate files. It worked and my computer is running better. The only problem is now InDesign crashes at startup. I have the original disks and serial number (CS3) The error message is "required resources are missing". Same message if I try to uninstall. Any clues as to how to re-install?

reset your preferences and retry launching id: InDesign Help | Setting preferences
if that fails, uninstall (properly with the uninstaller), clean and reinstall per Use the CC Cleaner Tool to solve installation problems | CC, CS3-CS6

Since the IOS 5 update my iPad seems to run a lot slower connecting to websites and general use? Can anyone help?

Since the IOS 5 update my iPad seems to run a lot slower connecting to websites and general use? Can anyone help?

Digging a little deeper on here, and I've Cleared the Safari cache, and rebooted , so i'll see if it is any better!!!!!

Wheel of doom spinning before I can log into the pro. Never happened before. The wheel spun a lot when i was using it yesterday and slowed down usage

wheel of doom spinning before I can log into the pro. So signing in was a panic attack in itself.
Never happened before.
The wheel has started to show up spun a lot when i was using it yesterday and slowed down general usage.
what is happening to the mac and what can I do to bring it back to life (before the rainbow wheel of doom)

If this has started happening suddenly without your having made any changes to your configuration, the it's likely that the boot drive is failing, or that there's some other hardware fault. Back up all data immediately, then run the Apple Hardware Test.
Intel-based Macs: Using Apple Hardware Test
Even if the test is negative, you should make a "Genius" appointment at an Apple Store to have the machine tested more thoroughly.

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??
it takes too much time to open a page.
Always Crash during upload..for big or small file..
It hangs and closed through Task manager or Reboot...

1. What are you "uploading"?
2. Have you tried a new Profile? Profiles don't last forever, and after going through a few major version updates "things" slow down, depending upon how much stuff the user has added to Firefox. Personally, I have created a new Profile for every new version of Firefox I have installed, up through Firefox 4.0. Didn't do that for Firefox 5, and probably won't for Firefox 6, due to the new fast release schedule and the fact that Firefox isn't being changed as much from one version to the next as it used to be changed under the 10 to 14 month intervals between major versions.<br />
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows

Broadband a lot slower than it used to be.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for