BT Infinity is slower than ASDL for me...

Hello,
I recently upgraded to BT infinity from BT Broadband Option 3. I have never had better Internet speed or service than with BT Broadband, so when I received a phone call to say that BT Infinity had been installed in my area and that I could recieve speeds up to 8x faster than my current speed and only for £1 more than I was currently playing, I snapped it up!
I can honestly say that seems to have been a mistake, the speed on infinity is lousy not only on my laptop, but on my phone and my sister's phones. I cant even load videos or most websites including Hotmail and youtube, pictures (even low resolution) take forever to load, its a miracle that I managed to get on here! My younger brother has even noticed a lot of lagging when playing his Xbox online that he finds the games unplayable. Again this never happened before Infinity.
I'm also lucky if I can get higher than 5.5mbps anytime of the day. I have passed the 10 day period that BT advised about but nothing seems to have changed. Its got to the point where I really want to go back to ASDL. I have read this forum and looked at what other people have said about turning off the Home Hub 3 for 30 secs before restarting which I have done. Even though I am connected wirelessly I never had a problem before and when I connect directly through a cable and disable the Wifi on my laptop I still have trouble!
I will be phoning up the helpline again tomorrow but they are as useless as a chocolate teapot. so hold very little hope of them being able to sort it out. If anyone can give any other advice I would be most grateful. It amazes me just how much I have come to rely on the internet; from making purchases to chatting to friends, I can t do these things now and its frustating to say the least.
Paul Roche
One very frustrated BT Infinity Customer!!
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi Raichutamer,
Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting. I'm sure we can help with this. How are you connecting? Wired or wireless? Can you run the speed test "details at
www.bt.com/help/infinityspeedtest" and post the details along with your router stats.
Cheers
David
BTCare Community Mod
If we have asked you to email us with your details, please make sure you are logged in to the forum, otherwise you will not be able to see our ‘Contact Us’ link within our profiles.
We are sorry but we are unable to deal with service/account queries via the private message(PM) function so please don't PM your account info, we need to deal with this via our email account :-)

Similar Messages

Firefox 4 is slow in loading web pages, much slower than previous version. WHY?

I am having problems with slow loading of pages, slower than Explorer for the same page for example.
What can be done?

Have you tried (1) restarting your router, and (2) resetting the wifi on the iPad? To do #2, go to Settings, General, Reset, Reset Network Settings.

I just restored my 24 inch imac and it seems to be running MUCH slower than before. Any Ideas why? thanks in advance for your help!

I have erased and restored my 24 inch Intel iMac. I have upgraded to the last version of X os. My system is running WAY slower than it was before. Even opening windows seems to lag and the spinning wheel come up for everything. Every task is slow, even typing this! lol
Here are my specs:
Model Name:          iMac
Model Identifier:          iMac8,1
Processor Name:          Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed:          2.8 GHz
Number Of Processors:          1
Total Number Of Cores:          2
L2 Cache:          6 MB
Memory:          4 GB
Bus Speed:          1.07 GHz
Boot ROM Version:          IM81.00C1.B00
SMC Version (system):          1.30f1
Any ideas would be helpful. Is this a hardware issue?
Thanks!

Matt:
Thanks for the update. It is good to know that the maintenance procedures helped. Regular maintenance and a good backup are key to computer security. Gulliver's article has a suggested schedule. Dr. Smoke's FAQ on Backup and Recovery has excellent information and advice. I part company with him on his insistence on Retrospect, which I have found to be difficult to use. SuperDuper has been shown the best backup software in these tests.
If you usually leave your computer on or asleep, it is good practice to shut down and start up in Safe Mode occausionally. I do it about once weekly.
Good luck.
cornelius
Message was edited by: cornelius

New router M1424WR (ver. I) is slower than ver. C for wireless--why?

I installed a new Actiontec MI424WR (ver. I) router, which I bought from Verizon to replace my version C router. The new router is fine for wired connections but slow for wireless. If I set my laptop right next to the router, the speed is fine. If I set the laptop 20 feet away, in a straight line with no obstructions between it and the router, the speed drops by 50-90 percent. Overall, I find the version I router worse than the version C. FYI, the laptop is new, superfast, and has wireless-n. Is it normal to find the version I router slower than version C? I would like to find a solution. Otherwise, I suppose I will have to return the new $100 router. I tried Verizon's chat support, but the tech simply told me that walls etc. can slow down wireless speed--not useful info, given that the version C was running faster under the same conditions here. Are there some special tricks to make the version C router work better? The new router also seems less able to send signals through walls and floors, which should not be the case. I feel disappointed that Verizon pushed the sale of the new router; the upgrade has been a time-consuming downgrade. Thank you.

Try changing the channels on the router. 1, 6, 11. Most likely its set to 6 so try the other 2. You can download a free program called inSSIDer which will help you figure out what the best channel for you to be using is.
http://www.metageek.net/products/inssider/

I have found that my Mac Book Pro 15 inch late 2011 is slower than my PC Windows 7 for certain downloads, and working with iPhoto. Would adding RAM be helpful in speeding up this process. Currently I have the stock 4GB RAM, and storage 500GB HD drive.

I have found that my Mac Book Pro late 2011 15 inch is slower than I expected with certain downloads, or working with iPhoto than expected compared to my previous Windows 7 PC. Would adding RAM be of any value in speeding up the process?

how to tell if your mac needs more ram

BT Infinity Extremely Slow Upload (380 Kb/s)

I switched from Sky ADSL2+ to BT Infinity FTTC on 9/01/2014.
When I purchased BT Infinity on 27/12/13 in their confirmation e-mail BT wrote:
We estimate your download speed will be between 16.3Mb and 22.5Mb.
We estimate your upload speed will be between 2.2Mb and 4Mb.
I am about 1 mile away from my cabinet and connected with a copper line so these relatively low estimated speeds look reasonable to me.
My Sky ADSL 2+ Connection was providing 6.5Mb/s download and 0.85Mb/s upload so I thought it was worth switching.
SKY ADSL 2+
Every day since activation my BT Infinity speed has hovered around 15Mb/s download (fine) and 0.4Mb/s upload, sometimes dipping to as low as 0.2Mb/s but never exceeding 0.5Mb/s, which is negatively affecting my internet experience.
BT Infinity FTTC
I contacted BT several times and was instructed to measure the speed using a wired connection with speedtest.btwholesale.com, reset the hub, reboot my machine and so forth. Eventually various line tests were performed and a line fault was registered. A BT engineer visited on 25/01/14 and confirmed that my home wiring was fine, only one socket is wired with no extensions and the newest openreach face plate is fitted and working correctly. He tried also using a Home Hub 4 with separate modem. The same speeds were achieved. He tried switching the twisted pair connecting my master socket to the point at which the line enters my property. The same speeds were achieved. He informed me that although my line is quite long I am within the attenuation/capacitance limits and there seems to be no fault on the line. He recommended that I should request a broadband speed boost visit and that an engineer may be able to change the pair used to connect me to the cabinet which may improve the speeds. I contacted BT today and they refused to comply with this stating there was absolutely nothing further they could do to increase my upload speed.
BTW BT Infinity FTTC
I have a few questions:
1) How can BT so accurately estimate the download but not the upload speed?
2) Is the fact that my upload is 5x slower than estimated whilst the estimated download is accurate an indication of a problem with my line or with the setup in the cabinet or at the exchange?
3) How can the ADSL2+ provide double the upload speed of VDSL?
4) When the BT engineer connected his kit directly to the twisted pair it reported that the maximum download rate was approximately 12Mb/s and upload 1.2Mb/s. How can the download increase to 15Mb/s after the filter and modem are attached yet the upload drop by a factor of 3?
5) Is there any way to end this madness? I'd like to at least have my old upload speed back.
6) Since BT have signed the Ofcom Voluntary Code of Practice on Broadband Speeds which specifies:
“If ... the customer continues to receive an access line speed significantly lower than the estimate provided at point of sale the ISPs should offer the customer with an alternative broadband package. Consumers should not incur any change of package penalty in order to migrate onto a different broadband package under these circumstances other than those charges that would have applied had they signed up to that lower package in the first instance.” I, of course, have the right to switch to a cheaper package from BT such as ADSL2+ without a charge. Is it likely this will again double my upload speed?
(All speeds mentioned were measured using a wired gigabit ethernet connection to the home hub 5 modem/router and the website speedof.me, these results match within error those taken using speedtest.btwholesale.com. No wireless devices were connected to the hub and only the speed test was running on an Intel Core i5, 8GB Ram, ASUS P8Z77-V LX machine. They agree within error with measurements taken using a Mac Book Pro with 5GHz wi-fi.)
Home Hub 5 Stats:
1. Product name:
BT Home Hub
2. Serial number:
3. Firmware version:
Software version 4.7.5.1.83.8.173.1.6 (Type A) Last updated 10/01/14
4. Board version:
BT Hub 5A
5. VDSL uptime:
0 days, 00:41:10
6. Data rate:
387 / 15534
7. Maximum data rate:
449 / 15779
8. Noise margin:
8.2 / 6.4
9. Line attenuation:
0.0 / 32.7
10. Signal attenuation:
0.0 / 26.2

Hi Bob101,
Thanks for the post and welcome to the forum. Sorry to hear of the problems you are having with your upload speed.
If im honest something doesn't sound right. Our speed estimates are just that, estimates but they are generally pretty close and certainly should not be way off the mark. I cant comments on what is going on until I take a look at your connection stats for my end. I would also like to review the engineer report.
Can you please get your details off to me and I will see what I can do. Please drop me an email, just click on my username (SeanD), and you will find my contact link under the 'About me' section of my profile.
Cheers
Sean
BTCare Community Manager
If we have asked you to email us with your details, please make sure you are logged in to the forum, otherwise you will not be able to see our ‘Contact Us’ link within our profiles.
We are sorry that we are unable to deal with service/account queries via the private message(PM) function so please don't PM your account info, we need to deal with this via our email account :-)

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

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.

After updating to Mavericks, my mac seems slower than ever.

Here is a report for my mac that maybe someone can help me figure out why. Is something not compatible?
Hardware Information:
iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2011)
iMac - model: iMac12,1
1 2.5 GHz Intel Core i5 CPU: 4 cores
4 GB RAM
Video Information:
AMD Radeon HD 6750M - VRAM: 512 MB
System Software:
OS X 10.9.2 (13C64) - Uptime: 0 days 6:56:17
Disk Information:
ST3500418AS disk0 : (500.11 GB)
EFI (disk0s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
Macintosh HD (disk0s2) / [Startup]: 499.25 GB (133.53 GB free)
Recovery HD (disk0s3) <not mounted>: 650 MB
HL-DT-STDVDRW GA32N
USB Information:
Apple Computer, Inc. IR Receiver
Apple Internal Memory Card Reader
Apple Inc. FaceTime HD Camera (Built-in)
Apple Inc. BRCM2046 Hub
Apple Inc. Bluetooth USB Host Controller
Serato Serato Scratch LIVE(c)2004
SCM Microsystems Inc. SCR3310 v2.0 USB Smart Card Reader
FireWire Information:
Thunderbolt Information:
Apple Inc. thunderbolt_bus
Kernel Extensions:
com.serato.usb.kext     (2.3.0)
Launch Daemons:
[System]     com.adobe.fpsaud.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.macpaw.CleanMyMac2.Agent.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.accessd.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.attachmentd.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.backupd.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.cardcald.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.portsd.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.staged.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.marketcircle.daylite.touchd.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.microsoft.office.licensing.helper.plist 3rd-Party support link
Launch Agents:
[System]     com.divx.dms.agent.plist 3rd-Party support link
[System]     com.divx.update.agent.plist 3rd-Party support link
User Launch Agents:
[not loaded]     com.adobe.ARM.[...].plist 3rd-Party support link
[not loaded]     com.citrixonline.GoToMeeting.G2MUpdate.plist 3rd-Party support link
[not loaded]     com.divx.agent.postinstall.plist 3rd-Party support link
[not loaded]     com.macpaw.CleanMyMac2Helper.diskSpaceWatcher.plist 3rd-Party support link
[not loaded]     com.macpaw.CleanMyMac2Helper.scheduledScan.plist 3rd-Party support link
[not loaded]     com.macpaw.CleanMyMac2Helper.trashWatcher.plist 3rd-Party support link
User Login Items:
iTunesHelper
AdobeResourceSynchronizer
Dropbox
Internet Plug-ins:
FlashPlayer-10.6: Version: 12.0.0.77 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
Default Browser: Version: 537 - SDK 10.9
AdobePDFViewerNPAPI: Version: 11.0.06 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
AdobePDFViewer: Version: 11.0.06 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
Flash Player: Version: 12.0.0.77 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
LogMeIn: Version: 1.0.961 - SDK 10.7 3rd-Party support link
LogMeInSafari32: Version: 1.0.961 - SDK 10.7 3rd-Party support link
QuickTime Plugin: Version: 7.7.3
SharePointBrowserPlugin: Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
Silverlight: Version: 5.1.20913.0 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
Unity Web Player: Version: UnityPlayer version 4.3.4f1 - SDK 10.6 3rd-Party support link
Safari Extensions:
DivX Plus Web Player HTML5 <video>: Version: 2.1.2.172
Amazon Shopping Assistant: Version: 1.1
Ebay Shopping Assistant: Version: 1.1
Searchme: Version: 1.2
Audio Plug-ins:
BluetoothAudioPlugIn: Version: 1.0 - SDK 10.9
AirPlay: Version: 2.0 - SDK 10.9
AppleAVBAudio: Version: 203.2 - SDK 10.9
iSightAudio: Version: 7.7.3 - SDK 10.9
iTunes Plug-ins:
Quartz Composer Visualizer: Version: 1.4 - SDK 10.9
User iTunes Plug-ins:
TuneUp Visualizer: Version: 2.4.0 - SDK 10.7 3rd-Party support link
User Internet Plug-ins:
CitrixOnlineWebDeploymentPlugin: Version: 1.0.105 3rd-Party support link
Google Earth Web Plug-in: Version: 7.0 3rd-Party support link
3rd Party Preference Panes:
Flash Player 3rd-Party support link
Old Applications:
/Library/Application Support/Microsoft/MERP2.0
Microsoft Error Reporting:     Version: 2.2.9 - SDK 10.4 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Ship Asserts:     Version: 1.1.4 - SDK 10.4 3rd-Party support link
Solver:     Version: 1.0 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
/Applications/Microsoft Office 2011/Office/Add-Ins/Solver.app
SLLauncher:     Version: 1.0 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
/Library/Application Support/Microsoft/Silverlight/OutOfBrowser/SLLauncher.app
/Applications/Microsoft Office 2011/Office
Microsoft Graph:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Database Utility:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Office Reminders:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Upload Center:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
My Day:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
SyncServicesAgent:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Open XML for Excel:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Alerts Daemon:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Database Daemon:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Chart Converter:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Clip Gallery:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Epson Printer Utility 4:     Version: 9.17 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
/Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Utility/UT4/Epson Printer Utility 4.app
/Applications/Microsoft Office 2011
Microsoft PowerPoint:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Excel:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Outlook:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Word:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Document Connection:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
Microsoft Language Register:     Version: 14.3.2 - SDK 10.5 3rd-Party support link
/Applications/Microsoft Office 2011/Additional Tools/Microsoft Language Register/Microsoft Language Register.app
BrFirmDataProvider:     Version: 1.0.4 - SDK 10.4 3rd-Party support link
/Applications/Brother/Utilities/Firmware Update Tool/BrIfax/resources/BrFirmDataProvider.app
Microsoft AutoUpdate:     Version: 2.3.6 - SDK 10.4 3rd-Party support link
/Library/Application Support/Microsoft/MAU2.0/Microsoft AutoUpdate.app
/Applications/iWork '09
PDF Toolkit:     Version: 1.6 - SDK 10.0 3rd-Party support link
Time Machine:
Skip System Files: NO
Mobile backups: OFF
Auto backup: NO - Auto backup turned off
Volumes being backed up:
Macintosh HD: Disk size: 464.96 GB Disk used: 340.60 GB
Destinations:
Data [Network] (Last used)
Total size: 2
Total number of backups: 91
Oldest backup: 2012-12-11 04:35:50 +0000
Last backup: 2014-03-03 17:10:05 +0000
Size of backup disk: Excellent
Backup size 2 > (Disk size 464.96 GB X 3)
Time Machine details may not be accurate.
All volumes being backed up may not be listed.
Top Processes by CPU:
    14%     iTunes
    4%     WindowServer
    1%     Dock
    1%     Mail
    0%     coreaudiod
Top Processes by Memory:
274 MB     Mail
187 MB     iTunes
147 MB     mds_stores
74 MB     softwareupdated
45 MB     Safari
Virtual Memory Information:
31 MB     Free RAM
906 MB     Active RAM
897 MB     Inactive RAM
893 MB     Wired RAM
7.59 GB     Page-ins
1.55 GB     Page-outs

Try removing CleanMyMac. The OS cleans up after itself.
Myth of the Dirty Mac
CleanMyMac - Uninstall
CleanMyMac2 Un-install
Activity Monitor - Mavericks
Activity Monitor in Mavericks has significant changes
Performance Guide
Why is my computer slow
Why your Mac runs slower than it should
Slow Mac After Mavericks
Things you can do to resolve slowdowns see post by Kappy

Home Hub 3 is slower than dial up.

I used to be on a voyager 220v router but started having connection problems. After speaking to customer support, and after they ran some tests on the line/router, they told me that the fault was with the 220v and as it was obsolete, i would need to change to a HH3.
After receiving the HH3, im now finding that the d/l speed for webpages is slower than it was on dial-up. Ive tried running speedtester but it fails to complete and just gives an error that it cant be completed at this time and to try later. After reading another thread on this issue, i went and found the settings from the hub itself, these are posted below:-
ADSL Settings
VPI/VCI:
0/38
Type:
PPPoA
Modulation:
G.992.5 Annex A
Latency type:
Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up):
4.6 dB / 10.5 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up):
28.7 dB / 15.4 dB
Output power (Down/Up):
20.4 dBm / 11.3 dBm
FEC Events (Down/Up):
57086058 / 0
CRC Events (Down/Up):
90472 / 32
Loss of Framing (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Signal (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Power (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
HEC Events (Down/Up):
1331805 / 8
Error Seconds (Local/Remote):
1736 / 0
is their anything amongst the above which explains why its running so slowly?

Bah, this is a PITA.
Got up around 7am and the HH3 was displaying connection time of 10 hours, great, lets leave it for 24 and see what happens. Tried browsing and pages were incredibly slow to load, thats when they did actually load. I said stuff it and took the dog for a walk and left everything as is. Got back and checked again at 9.15 to find a connection time of 14 mins, so obvioulsy something has reset itself.
Tried speedtester and quite simply, the page would not load in order for me to test it.
Tried clean line check, sounds perfect, no noise whatsoever on it.
Tried connecting to the test socket and now get the following results:-
FAQ
1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Download Speed
0.56 Mbps
0 Mbps
21 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Download speedachieved during the test was - 0.56 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 4 Mbps-21 Mbps.
IP Profile for your line is - 11.28 Mbps
2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.
Upload Speed
0.73 Mbps
0 Mbps
0.83 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Upload speed achieved during the test was - 0.73Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 0.83 Mbps
This test was not conclusive and further testing is required.This might be useful for your Broadband Service Provider to investigate the fault.
If you wish to carry out further tests,please click on 'Continue' button.If not, please close the window using 'Exit' button and contact your ISP for further assistance with these results.
ADSL Line Status
Connection Information
Line state:
Connected
Connection time:
0 days, 00:08:56
Downstream:
12.49 Mbps
Upstream:
888.9 Kbps
ADSL Settings
VPI/VCI:
0/38
Type:
PPPoA
Modulation:
G.992.5 Annex A
Latency type:
Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up):
4.5 dB / 10.6 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up):
29.1 dB / 15.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up):
20.4 dBm / 12.0 dBm
FEC Events (Down/Up):
1790482 / 0
CRC Events (Down/Up):
4292 / 0
Loss of Framing (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Signal (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Power (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
HEC Events (Down/Up):
22423 / 0
Error Seconds (Local/Remote):
10600 / 0

My final cut is running extremely slow after having for 6 months. I use external hard drives and save nothing on my computer. it takes a long time to render now. do you think something is wrong with computer. took it to mac store but they fail to help

my final cut is running extremely slow after having for 6 months. I use external hard drives and save nothing on my computer. it takes a long time to render now. do you think something is wrong with computer. took it to mac store but they fail to help me. I have a 13 inch mac book pro 10.6.8 8gb 2.3 gfz intel core i5

What did Apple tell you about what they did (or did not) find here?
See if working on the main disk is any faster.
USB2 is glacial, as I/O interconnects go. And USB2 disks have been known to fail, or sometimes to drop back to USB1 speeds, too. FireWire 800 is substantially faster than USB2, but still not as fast as the internal drive connections can provide.
Put another way, start varying your configuration, and see which configuration changes (still) have the problem, and which don't.

I have my Mac Book Pro with the OS Yesomite since a month and I am feeling that my mac is getting slower than before a month. I want to install OS Lion on my mac. I think i have a DVD of OS Lion which comes when i bougnt Mac laptop in 2011.

I have my Mac Book Pro with the OS Yesomite since a month and I am feeling that my mac is getting slower than before a month. I want to install OS Lion on my mac. I think i have a DVD of OS Lion which comes when i bougnt Mac laptop in 2011. Should i install OS Lion? What wil happen if i install OS Lion, do i lost my Applications or ...????

Hi, the last install dvd that came out for mac's was Snow Leopard,10.6.3. Lion is a download from apple. You cannot just install it over Yosemite. You would have to backup your drive to save files you want and do a clean install. You might want to look into getting more memory. You can run 8 Gig"s of memory on your Macbook Pro.If your Macbook Pro is getting really slow you might want to download EtreCheck and then post the results here.http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck Check out this article. http://support.apple.com/kb/PH19031

Mac OS internet 5x slower than Windows 7 on BootCamp

Alright, here is my problem...
My one and only computer is a mid 2010 iMac... I recently moved to a new place. Prior to me moving I was stuck with an awful 3Mbps download speed. (You can tell how much I hated it by looking at my username) Now that I moved, I am able to get much faster internet. So, I got a plan that offers up to 50Mbps download speeds (Xfinity Blast cable internet). I didn't want to rent my ISP's modem/router, so I purchased my own. I got a Motorola sbg6580. As soon as I got everything hooked up, it seemed perfect. I used speedtest.net to see what I was getting. I first tested on Windows 7. To my surprise, I was getting around 70Mbps. I then restarted my iMac into the Mac OS to do some speed tests. On the Mac OS, I was getting around 50-60Mbps. A bit slower than Windows 7, but still very good. The next day I decided to do a "real world" test. I downloaded a 1 Gigabyte file just to see how fast it was. Now, if I was getting 50Mbps the file should have taken just under 3 minutes to download. Instead, it took around 7 minutes. I figured it was maybe just the website I was downloading from. (the file I was downloading was the Cry Enginge SDK - http://www.crydev.net/ ) I did some research and discovered the website testmy.net - I am not sure if this is completely reliable or not, but every test I do on testmy.net I get around 10Mbps. At first I thought it was my ISP ripping me off, then I decided to do a testmy.net test on Windows 7 via BootCamp. (please note that on both Mac OSX and Windows 7 I did multiple tests over the coarse of multiple days) On Windows, I could instantly tell that the test was going much faster. The results for testmy.net on Windows 7 were 50-60Mbps. I did not completely trust the website, so I downloaded the same Cryengine SDK on Windows. It took around 3 minutes, just as it should have. I researched a bunch online trying to find info on this problem. I tried many "solutions" but none of them changed anything. (these include but are not limited to: Tried different DNS servers, Disabled ipv6, disabled sbg6580 firewall, disabled mac osx firewall, tried changing the wireless channel, and reset sbg6580. I came to the conclusion that it was the sbg6580. I thought that maybe an airport express would give me better results. So, today I bought an Airport express. With the sbg6580, I was able to disable the router features so it was just a modem. I was then able to set up the Airport express as my router. It fixed nothing. I am still getting the same results, Windows is still getting anywhere from 50-60Mbps while Mac OSX is getting around 10Mbps. I am out of ideas, if anyone could please help me that would be great. Also, if you need to know anything else please let me know. I may have missed something...
A quick note:
At my old house I had my iMac hooked up to a surge protector. For maximum internet performance, my iMac was connected to my router with an ethernet cable. During a bad storm one day, a lightning bolt either hit my house or very close to it. Ever since, my ethernet port has not worked. I have tried multiple eithernet cables as well as multiple routers and networks. I do not have the money for apple to completely replace my logic board. - So anyway, I am unable to test the performace with an eithernet cable.
Extra information:
My sbg6580 as well as my Airport extreme are both sitting on the same desk as my iMac, so it is obviously not a signal problem.
I also own both a iPod touch 5th gen and a iPad 2nd gen. I am getting around 20-30Mbps on both of them. I am not sure what would be a "good speed" on either of these, but I figured that was pretty good for a tablet and ipod.
The upload speeds on both windows 7 and Mac OSX are around the same 5-10Mbps.
I am using Google Chrome on both Windows 7 and Mac OSX but, I have also tried Firefox and Safari.

Please read this whole message before doing anything.
This procedure is a diagnostic test. It’s unlikely to solve your problem. Don’t be disappointed when you find that nothing has changed after you complete it.
The purpose of the test is to determine whether the problem is caused by third-party software that loads automatically at startup or login, or by a peripheral device.
Disconnect all wired peripherals except those needed for the test, and remove all aftermarket expansion cards. Boot in safe mode and log in to the account with the problem. Note: If FileVault is enabled, or if a firmware password is set, or if the boot volume is a software RAID, you can’t do this. Post for further instructions.
Safe mode is much slower to boot and run than normal, and some things won’t work at all, including wireless networking on certain Macs. The next normal boot may also be somewhat slow.
The login screen appears even if you usually log in automatically. You must know your login password in order to log in. If you’ve forgotten the password, you will need to reset it before you begin. Test while in safe mode. Same problem? After testing, reboot as usual (i.e., not in safe mode) and verify that you still have the problem. Post the results of the test.

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.

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

BT Infinity is slower than ASDL for me...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for