DSL on Windows is FASTER than DSL on iMAC ( Same DSL Connection )

Hi
I was wondering when I plug DSL to my Window PC and Run a DSL Test I get faster speed than when I plug DSL to my IMAC ?? I am using 512/4.096 up/down DSL service
Test for Window : 3586 kbps
Test for MAC : 3400 kbps
Also on window 91 Ping rate VS 153 Ping rate for iMac
keep in mind that I just switched the cable and plug into Window and MAC.
How can this be solve ? Why is the Imac slower than the Window machines?
Is there any setting that needs to be modify ? if so, please give me a walk-through.
Thank alot
tk3435

For what it's worth, I'd love to have either of those DSL speeds.....
Perhaps in Thailand the lines are much more stable than in the US but here, I easily get 10% "wobble" between consecutive speed tests, so your numbers don't strike me as really different. Do your tests reflect the average of multiple runs?
A.

Similar Messages

Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

I have a two year old Macbook; 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM with about 30GB left of memory. I also just purchased, from apple, a 27" Imac; 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 with 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. and have just under 850GB left. The Macbook is running on 10.5.8 and the Imac is on 10.6.3.
My issue is that when i download/stream video to my Imac it takes a substantial amount of time. I love to watch movies, tv shows, ect, on my Imac. I was disappointed by how slow the downloads would take. So I set up my macbook right in front of the Imac to compare the speeds. I went to the Movie Trailers section on apple.com and I clicked on The Last Airbender 1080p (149MB) at the same time for both computers (on WiFi of the same network). My macbook finished the download 5 minutes faster than the Imac. I then tried the 42MB version with a minute difference with the Macbook. I then went to youtube and it was almost the same speed. I tried Itunes and it was about the same speed as well. I then did an internet speed test with both and got these results:
Macbook: Download 18.45Mb/s, Upload 2.28Mb/s, Ping 93
IMac: Download 20.88Mb/s, Upload 2.3Mb/s, Ping 89
I don't know if any of this information helps or if anyone will even read this far but the apple store is extremely far from my house and would try almost anything to fix this issue. My questions are:
1) Is this a known issue that has a fix, if so how do i fix it?
2) Is this possibly a faulty computer that i would have to return?
3) Is this the way it's supposed to operate and if I don't like it take it back
Thanks in advance for anyone who even reads this post.

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Ubuntu and Windows XP Faster than Arch Shock Horror! (In Virtualbox)

Hello. I'm just trying out Virtualbox in a Windows host with Ubuntu, XP and Arch, and the outright loser in terms of performance is Arch. This is the absolute opposite to normal installation of these OS's on any machine I ever used. Arch normally piddles all over Ubuntu and XP in terms of speed. Instead, programs take ages to load, even stuff like terminal emulators, firefox and opera work rubbish (especially when trying to play flash video), and boot time is noticeably slower (despite my terrifying attempts at hacking the files described in the How to Boot Arch faster Wiki, thank goodness for the snapshot facility).
The host has 1Gb RAM, 128MB graphics memory, and I allocated 256Gb RAM and 24Mb graphics memory to each virtual machine. The other two guests run very well. For normal internet use there is very little performance drop. In Arch I am running xfce4 as a DE/WM and using firefox/opera as web browsers. I installed guest additions, added my daemons...it should work good, dammit!!!
I saw somewhere that Arch just flat out doesn't really like being in a virtual environment, is this correct? Regardless of the answer, does anyone have any useful tips and tricks that might speed things up a bit? It's like Virtual Ubuntu is pointing and laughing at the poor thing...

Wra!th wrote:Latest Ubuntu is ftw. No doubt about it. I mean it's like 3 times faster (atleast boot-wise) than Arch, and starts like 3 times more daemons than a configured Arch.
In-desktop it's not at all slow. Works better with effects out of the box on my laptop than arch with any type of compositing.and it took absolutetly no configuration. it was all ootb...
Any hard statistics comparing Ubuntu 9.04 and Arch? It would be nice to get some numbers...
Edit: O.K. I see you put some numbers up above. 40-50 seconds for Arch? I've never had an Arch boot take that long. How many daemons are you running?
Last edited by madalu (2009-06-11 19:31:05)

Windows simulation fast enough on mbp?

hello,
i use an old g4 pb, and a windows-laptop.
now i want to get one laptop - running both: mainly mac, sometimes vista.
is the windows (bootcamp, Parallels) with f.e. adobe cs2 fast enough for working? or is it too slow?
i know, this is a difficult question, depends on the subjective feeling of each user. but i like to hear some feedback of users, that usw windows, too, on a mbp.
thanks
claus
<edited by host>

with bootcamp the mbp would run at the same speed as any comparable intel system
with vmware fusion i find the mbp booots windows 2000 faster than a dell booots windows xp, but i rarely need windows so haven't used it much beyond installing office and testing it worked ok, certainly didn't find any issues with speed
running linux under vmware fusion for a cisco network and video management application, there's absolutely no problems with performance even when the mbp is also streaming video under osx and running other apps, i tried running windows at the same time and it was still fine
the only thing i do that maxes out the mbp is encoding video in premiere pro (cs3 under osx) the fans run non-stop and it gets pretty warm

Air faster than imac

i have a 1.6 ghz 80 gb air and it is faster than my imac 2.0 ghz 250 gb 1 gb ram why? thanks

Your MBA has twice the RAM at 2 GB than your imac at 1 GB. If you exceed your physical RAM, then the disc is utilized more for virtual RAM and is thus slower.
All MBAs have 2 GB RAM standard and the bus is also faster than some older imacs.
Use your MBA happily with the increased memory and speed.
Message was edited by: Rhyd

How much fast are the new iMac's?

I've been looking at upgrading my G5 PowerMac for a while and now Apple has just updated the iMac. How much faster are the new models over the just superseded ones and my G5 (spec below).
I mainly us it for my work with Photoshop CS2 and the G5 does a great job most of the time but is showing it's age. I was looking at the 2nd model but for not much more you can get the 27inch screen with better upgrade options.

Hi Craig,
even the very first 2006 released Intel iMacs were faster than the G5 iMacs including yours.
See this Barefeats test http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html
Check additional tests on Barefeats on older iMacs against newer ones http://www.barefeats.com/
The new 2010 iMacs of any sort run circles around the 2006 iMacs, so you are in for a very pleasant surprise
Regards
Stefan

DSL connection gets slower than dial up at night

For the last week my DSL connection has been getting really slow in the late afternoon and evening. It is fine in the morning. Also in the evening I have started getting error messages such as Request Timeout, The connection was reset while the page was loading, and Can't find DNS server. Verizon has tried to blame my laptop, but the same thing happens with my two desktops and my wife's desktop. Verizon has also tried to blame my Belkin router, which I took out of the equation by hooking the DSL modem directly to my laptop. The modem is a Westell 6100G.
Could there be too much traffic through the CO in the afternoon and evening that is affecting my connection?
I have run the Verizon speed test with the following results:
Broadband Speed Test
Analysis information:
Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
SendBufferSize set to [261360]
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 330.89Kb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 779.59kb/s
------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 7, Architecture = x86, Version = 6.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0_31
------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Client Receive Window detected at 135024 bytes.
Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found.
Link set to Full Duplex mode
No network congestion discovered.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.
Web100 reports the Round trip time = 944.73 msec; the Packet size = 1392 Bytes; and
No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 0.24% of the time
This connection is receiver limited 37.82% of the time.
Increasing the the client's receive buffer (131.0 KB) will improve performance
This connection is sender limited 52.94% of the time.
This connection is network limited 9.25% of the time.
Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [71.119.134.43] but Client says [192.168.2.2]
Here are my Transceiver stats:
Transceiver Statistics
Transceiver Revision
3.3.6.10.0.1
Vendor ID Code
4D54
Line Mode
ADSL_2plus
Data Path
INTERLEAVED
Transceiver Information
Down Stream Path
Up Stream Path
DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)
928
287
Margin (dB)
25.4
27.2
Line Attenuation (dB)
36.5
15.2
Transmit Power (dBm)
17.8
12.0
Solved!
Go to Solution.

NDT Test is not showing packet loss yet the line sounds like it's behaving like there is a ton of loss occurring. I'll see if I can get someone. It's hard to say how Verizon has things set up but if 1Mbps is the top speed in your area and the sync rate was set that low deliberately rather than by some sort of provisioning accident, I wonder if your DSLAM is fed by bonded T1 lines. Not too uncommon to find that still to this day where DSLAMs are not fed by Fiber especially in very rural areas.
========
The first to bring me 1Gbps Fiber for $30/m wins!

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?: When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

Thanks Erik,
If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
As an aside....
I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...) were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

My itunes on a windows 7 pc with dsl connection will not connect with the itunes store

my itunes on a windows 7 pc with dsl connection will not connect with the itunes store. Any suggestions about why not or how to get it to connect?

After reading the whole post, I still don't capture the exact error message or code from it when you failed to install Office 2013.
The only clue is that "bootstrap loader error" ...
It seems that you want to upgrade Office 2007 to new Office 2013, by default, we could complete the uninstall previous Office version and install the new Office in the installation wizard.
At this point, if you get the install source through CD or other media. I recommand that we copy/paste the installation to local drive. Then turn off all of anti-virus and firewall, begin to setup in
Windows clean boot mode.
Please use a setup log to troubleshoot setup problems in Office if the installation problem still occurs.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826511/en-us
Tony Chen
TechNet Community Support

FYI: Apple Fast 10/100 Ethernet card does work faster than ........

...... builtin 10 base ethernet.
How much? 50-100% (my impression - not measured)
Conclusion: It was $12 well spent!
(card source = eBay)

I don't want to rain on your parade, but it must be something other than the speed alone. Perhaps the card can run Full Duplex (sending and receiving simultaneously) and the built-in may not.
Many DSL connections run at 0.768 MegaBytes/sec. A nice one may run as fast as 1.5 MegaBytes a second. Basic FIOS can go up to 5 MegaBytes a second. Your Built-in should run at 10 MegaBits/second, quite a bit faster. Running it at 100 Megabits/second and not changing anything else should not make a lot of difference.
Where that extra speed really helps a lot is in File Sharing with another Mac.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Safari 6 stalling DSL connection

Here I am with the exact same issue Safari 5 had when it was released.
I installed Safari 6 on my MacBook Pro whilst waiting for my Mountain Lion to download. I like the new changes and the page rendering seems to be super fast. But it keeps stalling my DSL connection. I know it's not an Airport problem, and it's not my MBP (other devices on the network are unable to load pages once the connection has stalled); which leaves just the modem and connection. Connection is fine when I'm using Chrome.
After upgrading to Mountain Lion, the issue was still present. So i backed up and did a clean install of Mountain Lion and still no joy.
Advice, suggestions, and resolutions very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Transltr

Yeah I am having the same issue - befor and after ML. Following on from the same issue, online documents ie. google spreadsheets become un-clickable, youtube videos do not stream smoothly...

Connecting 2 RV042 to different subnet and DSL connections

Small office, 2 RV042, 2 DSL connections. 1 is used striclty for the business side, and the other is for our CCTV network. They also have seperate DSL connections as we have 2 external IP address for clients to connect remotely. We don't want to take away our exisring setup, but would like to bridge both networks so a few of our internal clients can connect to our CCTV network and use some of the devices. Right now they come in on VPN but its not as fast.
Is this doable without adding additional hardware? Both networks need DHCP enable as well.
Breakdown:
DSL 1
|
RV042
|
192.168.20.X
|
| Would like to somehow join the 2 networks together.
|
DSL 2
|
RV042
|
192.168.40.X

Hi Matt, you may utilize 1 RV042 router and host the dual wan for each connection then bind the appropriate services to the WAN. You then may enable the multiple subnet feature on the router to allow both separate LAN IP network communication through the LAN.
Next you can make very specific firewall rules for the specific services.
The caveat of this router firewall is that it has a default state table. To bypass the default state table you will need to make such a deny all rule for every field.
Then make a service rule to permit source ip to destination IP using which WAN for what service. (Confusing isn't it?)
Reference this topic to get an idea what I'm talking about.
https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3828616#3828616
-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

How can I get 64-bit windows versions other than 'nightly'

How can I get a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows that isn't alpha quality (Nightly).
I'm still running FF 3.6.26 ....
I've said before, give me a reason to upgrade...64-bits would be a good reason, but the fact that a large number of extensions fail -- (try to install the latest firebug 'swarm' in nightly -- epic fail! (404)...), we not only don't have a swarm for you we've never even heard of you!...
So give me a version of FF-go-nightly, that's equiv to the latest released version, and it might have a chance...
I did get most stuff working -- curious why jar files were renamed to 'ja', they don't seem to be in japanese when I unpacked them... ;-) I found it wasn't a typo...
had a full transparent brower on about blank... a bit weird. but sorta cool...
finally figured out how the menus were messed up and saw howto correct most of the damage, but without spending alot more time fine-tuning, it would be hard to get it back just right.. but after spending a day (~10am-8pm on using Nightly), upgrading/config'ing various extensions....etc.
Anyway, I know I said give me a reason.. to upgrade from 3.6 -- a carrot rather than a stick, but too many problems...come on .. even the version was unlucky to begin with! (13!?) .. (I like 13, really, but thought it was humorous).
So how about 64-bits in something a bit better supported?
Why not 64bit versions of each of the releases?
Finally FF got a bit better perf (a bit worse for more debug on, but better in having enough memory, and using a native instruction set rather than the virtualized 32-bit WOW, that it normally runs on...)...

Mozilla has never released a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows, and the 32-bit versions of Firefox are faster than the Nightly 64-bit version test builds.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

DSL on Windows is FASTER than DSL on iMAC ( Same DSL Connection )

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for