Express (g) faster than TimeCapsule (n)?

Very curious, I get a faster internet download when connecting to Time Capsule THROUGH my Airport Express "g" (on the floor above me), than when connecting directly to the TC sitting next to me (using a MacBook "n").
I have the TC set for WDS with the Express "g". I'm showing a solid 190 kb/sec through the Express, and only get a rough 130 kb/sec through the TC. I've even eliminated all "g" items on the network and isolated the TC using "n" only on both 2.4 and 5.0 GHz and still get slower speeds than the going through the Express "g". The TC speed actually slows as I move to from multicast of 2 up to 11 Mbps.
Did I mention I'm only a few feet away from the TC? My tests use the same file from the internet as a control measure.
Thanks for any comments.

I read about speed hits for WDS. I upgraded my Express to 802.11n and set it to "Extend a wireless network".
Seems to have resolved the issue.

Similar Messages

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Is time capsule faster than airport express

trying to decide if i should use TC as base station or if the existing airport express is just as good. that way i can put TC in more remote (protected) location

The TC is faster.. gigabit ethernet where the express is 100mbit.
Also the wireless on the TC AC model is much faster.. although a Gen4 would probably only be slightly better than Express gen2.
However the slow ethernet port on the Express means it can never be used.
So overall the Gen4 (and Gen3) are faster than Gen2 Express..
Whether that all matters comes down to your network speed.. for instance if your max internet speed is 50/5 then express is perfectly capable of handling it.. If the internet is any download speed over 100mbit.. then the express is not capable of handling it.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

Web Report - ABAP Vs JAVA engine - ABAP 10 times faster than JAVA

Guys,
I want to share what we found in our project and see if any of you have insights
into our findings.We are on NW2004S SP14 and we are moving to SP15 in a couple of weeks.We created query, developed WAD for it and executing the WAD takes for this query takes 22 secs (Vs 2 secs using ABAP) the query output has 1 million records and most of the actions we take from that point on like right click on account takes 20 secs (Vs 0 secs/instant using ABAP) , drilldown to level 4 of account hierarchy takes 58 secs (Vs 5 secs using ABAP), drilldown on cost center level 6 takes 42 secs (Vs 4 secs using ABAP), , right click on cost center takes 32 secs (Vs 3 secs using ABAP), ..etc.
Basically every action we take in the JAVA report takes an average of 28 secs.There are 9 aggregates built on the cube that are barely hit by this query but the same query performing same actions with same selections hit the aggregates many many times.The questions I have is why is ABAP so fast compared to JAVA ? What is true explanation behind this behavior ? What are the dis-advantages by using ABAP engine ? Users are loving the performance and features of ABAP while they weren't really on board with the original JAVA report (as it was slow). ABAP is sure enough 10 times faster than JAVA. Query/Query Properties are exactly the same in ABAP and JAVA.Please explain.
Cheers
RT

Hi All,
Thanks to all you for your responses. I appreciate your time for going through my questions and coming forward to express your views.
However, I was looking for more specific "factual" answers. My question is "What does a client miss if they opt to install only ABAP based BI 7.0, as against JAVA Based BI 7.0"
thanks again.
Naga

Very slow network performance - with uploads faster than downloads

I just got new ISP - 100 mbps through a Cat5 line. It checks out when I run ethernet directly to a computer. However, I want a totally wireless network.
I have a Time Capsule attached by ethernet and that is my main network device. I also have two airport Xpress' to extend the network.
I am getting, on average, 16 mbps! And, upload speed is generally higher.
The Time Capsule is about 2 yrs old, but it is an "n" device.
Anybody have any idea what the problem might be? I was considering getting a new extreme and using the Time Capsule as an extender instead of the expresses because, as I understand it, the express has one band only. Would that be better? Mainly, I want to get the speed up to what it should be.
Is there some way to trouble shoot the Time Capsule?
Others in my building with D Link or Linksys routers are getting over 80 mbps wirelessly, so I know it is possible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to stay with Apple products, but if not possible I will get another brand of router.
Thanks,
Deanna

Deannanel wrote:
So, William, I got an Airport Extreme. Within 20 or so feet of it I am now getting 85 to 95 Mbps!
Great!
However, in the far reaches of the house, signal is low and I have not been able to extent network with either the Time Capsule or an Airport Express. They just won't connect.
Based on the earlier numbers you gave me, you won't be able to establish a reliable connection "in the far reaches of the house", as it's too far away from the base router. You'll either have to (1) run Ethernet to that remote unit, (2) use PowerLine units as an Ethernet extender, or (3) put the remote unit closer to the base unit.
I reset the Time Capsule a couple of times. I noticed that both devices are automatically set to channel 157.
That's a 5 GHz channel. That band can give faster throughput, but the signal strength falls off faster than in the 2.4 GHz band.
The Extreme has 2 channels - 2 and 157. I do not have the option of changing the channel on either of the other devices.
That makes sense, if they're configured to extend an existing network. They must communicate on the same channel as the base station they're extending.

Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

My Mac Pro boot OS is on a 150 Gb striped raid made from outer partitions on two 1Tb drives in bays 1 and 2. There is 95 Gb free on the boot. 8 Gb RAM.
My normal scratch is on a dedicated 150 Gb striped raid made from the outer partitions of the 1Tb drives in bays 3 and 4.
I ran the Retouche artists Photoshop speed test with the scratch on the dedicated separate scratch, and on the boot volume.
The results were:
Average time of several runs with dedicated scratch was 45.5 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was 43.9 seconds.
Since I was expecting the dedicated scratch to be faster I was a bit surprised so I repeated the exercise on my MacBook Pro (1.83 MHz, 2 Gb RAM). Normal scratch is the boot volume which a 5400 rpm 500 Gb Samsung with 150 Gb free, no partitions. For this exercise, I connected an eSATA via an express card to provide a dedicated scratch alternative.
Average time with dedicated separate scratch was 152 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was also 152 seconds.
All Retouche Tests were done with 40 history states and 4 cache levels, which results in about 7Gb of scratch being used. On both machines Quickbench shows the scratch as just a few percent faster than the boot.
I repeated the Mac Pro tests with the test file located on different drives, including the boot and the scratch, but there were no significant differences.
What has happened to the standard advice about dedicated scratch for Photoshop?
Any thoughts ? (other than that I have too much time on my hands!)
Mike

Important to note the buffer on those drives are the all 32MB or are some 16MB.
A drive with a 32 MB buffer is going to record data faster.
However if you are on a MacPro (Intel) which it sounds like you are,
I can confirm that using your start up disk as opposed to a dedicated
separate scratch will not be of any speed advantage with photoshop.
At least it does not seem that way from my own test.
I also found partitioning the drive does not seem to be necessary on the intel box?
I have a test that is fairly consistent regardless as long as you have sufficient RAM 8 GB or more a Raid O scratch and an the same amount of memory allowed.
I still find with CS 4 that using bigger tiles is helpful as wel as the Forced VM Buffer plug in.
They still seem to speed things up a bit.
My test work on my dual xeon core duo that way in 16-18 seconds ona 8 core MacPro with 2GB of RAM and with out the Raid 0 and using the startup as the scratch with no Raid configured and without the plug ins it takes about 3 minutes.
The Ram and the raid are the important things the other two help.

MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

Hi
I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
Thanks!

Hi niefl,
First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
Finally, they look better!
If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
Cheers
Rod

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?

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

Can you install logic express on more than one computer

can you install logic express on more than one computer ?

Be sure to read the End User Licensing Agreement for questions of this nature. You are allowed to install Logic on two computers that you own, for example an iMac and a MacBook Pro. You cannot, however, use the two computers at the same time if they are on the same network. You can use one computer as a Logic Node to shift some of the processing load (which you would likely do with an ethernet cable) but you don't need to have a full installation of Logic on the Node machine, just the Logic Node installation. The idea of allowing two installations is so that you might take advantage of a portable computer in the field for on-site recording then later transfer those files to a desktop studio set up for further editing.

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
What's wrong with this picture?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

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.

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

I have no real idea, but I suspect
* the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
* it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

Express (g) faster than TimeCapsule (n)?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for