Got fibre today, far slower than estimated

I upgraded from standard BT Broadband to Fibre, and my estimated speeds that were given to me were between 11-18Mbps for download and 0.8-1.3Mbps for upload. It was activated about 7 hours ago and I am getting the upload speed perfectly fine right now, though as you can see my current download speed is about 3Mbps. I was wondering if I had to wait a while/few days for the speed to increase to the estimates? The speed I have now is really no better than my standard ADSL was.
EDIT: I should point out that my line was recently fixed by an engineer as there was a problem with the landline ringing incorrectly and my old broadband was being even slower than usual.
Helpdesk info:
1. Product name:
BT Home Hub
2. Serial number:
+068543+NQ50615033
3. Firmware version:
Software version 4.7.5.1.83.8.204 (Type A) Last updated 17/03/15
4. Board version:
BT Hub 5A
5. DSL uptime:
0 days, 00:10:33
6. Data rate:
1225 / 2985
7. Maximum data rate:
1225 / 3049
8. Noise margin:
6.1 / 6.2
9. Line attenuation:
13.4 / 32.6
10. Signal attenuation:
13.4 / 22.5
11. Data sent/received:
2.4 MB / 9.0 MB
12. Broadband username:
[email protected]
13. BT Wi-fi:
No
14. 2.4 GHz Wireless network/SSID:
BTHub5-SFTP
15. 2.4 GHz Wireless connections:
Enabled (802.11 b/g/n (up to 144 Mb/s))
16. 2.4 GHz Wireless security:
WPA2
17. 2.4 GHz Wireless channel:
Automatic (Smart Wireless)
18. 5 GHz Wireless network/SSID:
BTHub5-SFTP
19. 5 GHz Wireless connections:
Enabled (802.11 a/n/ac (up to 1300 Mb/s))
20. 5 GHz Wireless security:
WPA2
21. 5 GHz Wireless channel:
Automatic (Smart Wireless)
22. Firewall:
Default
23. MAC Address:
44:e9:dd:6e:a1:d0
24. Modulation:
G.993.2 Annex B
25. Software variant:
AA
26. Boot loader:
1.0.0
Solved!
Go to Solution.

looks like you are a long way from your street cabinet
Can you post back the results of this checker editing out your phone number
http://www.dslchecker.bt.com/adsl/ADSLChecker.TelephoneNumberOutput
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer,please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution’

Similar Messages

AE CS6 Far slower than 5.5 for some reason.

Howdy..
I have a fairly complex photo-collage comp in AE CS6. It's 1m long.
When I render with CS6, the estimated time is around 6 hours, however, if I 'save-as' a 5.5 project and render than with 5.5. the ETA is juat 2.25 hours...
Anyone else seeing this? It's on a 2 year old MacPro. 16GB Ram. Quatro 4000 card.
Thanks!
Best,
Ben

Yes, people already noticed. Check the forum for similar threads.
Mylenium

Firefox is supposed to be faster - it's far slower than any other version & I'm going to back to Explorer - this is too much & it keeps crashing!. Is anything going to be sorted soon?

It is now so slow to load pages - I can have coffee and then maybe a page has loaded. Otherwise it's "embarrassed" because it cannot load pages/ bookmarks. This version is terrible - can you not put back the previous version till you've sorted out the problems?

I don't know anything about that. But I googled it and found this post in another forum -
"I have more info on the issue at hand.
The RDTSC instruction has, until recently, been an excellent high-resolution, low-overhead way of getting CPU timing information. With the advent of multi-core/hyperthreaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and "hibernating" operating systems, RDTSC often no longer provides reliable results. The issue has two components: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no longer any promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. So, you can no longer get reliable timestamp values unless you lock your program to using a single CPU. Even then, the CPU speed may change due to power-saving measures taken by the OS or BIOS, or the system may be hibernated and later resumed (resetting the time stamp counter).
I might be understanding this wrong but... Basically both RDTSC and QPC are used to time code in time-sensitive programs. However, RDTSC might be inaccurate in above described situations. I also might be wrong about this but I believe QPC has something to do with the HPET high precision event timer. Which is a more accurate timer.
So this might explain why RDTSC and QPC has a delta that is too high. And if all of what I said above is true, then this error is benign."
This signature left intentionally blank.

Just uploaded Safari 6.0 with OS X 10.7.4 and it is by far slower than any Safari version so far. What is the problem? Can I go back to the previous Safari?

Just upgraded to Safari 6.0 when prompted by software upgrade in the apple menu. I have OS X 10.7.4. Was this a mistake? It is the slowest I have ever seen Safari. Safari has never uploaded a website properly on my brand new MacBook Pro but this is ridiculous. Can I go back to the previous Safari or are there any fixes? Please help.

Just upgraded to Safari 6.0 when prompted by software upgrade in the apple menu. I have OS X 10.7.4. Was this a mistake? It is the slowest I have ever seen Safari. Safari has never uploaded a website properly on my brand new MacBook Pro but this is ridiculous. Can I go back to the previous Safari or are there any fixes? Please help.

IBooks 3 *far* slower than 2.2...

On an iPad 3 32Gb WiFi+4G, iOS 6.01, ever since up updating to iBooks 3 it takes minutes in each session to update my lists (used to be a couple of seconds with iBooks 2.2), during which I can not edit anything. Nothing seems to work.... remove, reinstall, update to 3.01 or 3.02... I wish 2.2 was back... is anyone with an iPad 3 getting quick refreshes on iBooks 3?

No, it's just buggy.
To fix the crashing problem I suggest to look around and ask a friend to pass you the version 2.2.1 of iBooks. It works like a charm even with the latest update of the iOs 6.
I tried both iBooks 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 and they both are buggy and indexing all the time.

Ever since moving to OS 10.9.x my MacBook Pro has operated slower than before the change. Today I accessed the "monitor" and there scrolling up on the screen was this: "2/18/14 6:38:56.524 PM Wormhole[267]: pathToFramework: /Users/jbrad723/Library/Wormhol

Ever since moving to OS 10.9.x my MacBook Pro has operated slower than before the change. Today I accessed the "monitor" and there scrolling up on the screen was this:
"2/18/14 6:38:56.524 PM Wormhole[267]: pathToFramework: /Users/jbrad723/Library/Wormhol
2/18/14 6:38:56.524 PM Wormhole[267]: pathToFramework: /Users/jbrad723/Library/Wormhole/Wormhole.app/Contents/Resources/GoBridgeDemon. app/Contents/Frameworks/OTiTransfer.framework
2/18/14 6:38:56.527 PM Wormhole[267]: updateState: 5
2/18/14 6:38:57.525 PM Wormhole[267]: pathToDemonBundle:/Users/jbrad723/Library/Wormhole/Wormhole.app/Contents/Resour ces/GoBridgeDemon.app
2/18/14 6:38:57.525 PM Wormhole[267]: pathToFramework: /Users/jbrad723/Library/Wormhole/Wormhole.app/Contents/Resources/GoBridgeDemon. app/Contents/Frameworks/OTiTransfer.framework"
What is this?

Looks like remote access software.
http://wormholeremote.com

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.

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.

New hard drive slower than old one

Hello, my Seagate 120GB 5400rpm drive crashed 6 weeks ago and I made use of the warranty to get a replacement (refurbished) drive. I think this drive is no good because I have noticed a marked decrease in performance:
-Upon coming back from sleep mode the screen turns on but it pinwheels for several seconds, showing the time it was when I put it to sleep.
-My battery also lasts considerably less now. The battery is about a year old and had been lasting me up to two hours. It now doesn't last much more than one.
-I also tried to rip a dvd today and had to stop because it was going 5x slower than it had even on this drive when I first got it.
Is there anything else that could be causing me this decreased performance besides a subpar drive?
I have been in touch with Seagate again this weekend and they suggested I send it in for another replacement, which is fine, but is there a way I can copy all of this drive onto my replacement when it gets here? Or should I need to start fresh and reinstall everything on the new one?
Thanks.

You might want to check that you have selected a startup disk as "Macintosh HD" so the OS x knows where to boot from. If there is no selection under startup items in System Preferences then boot up is delayed by a few seconds as OS X would look for a functional startup disk.
Check and see if this works for you in bringing down boot times.
PS> Also check what login items you have in the lisr under Account.

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

I am having problems with my burst mode on my iphone 6 plus it is slower than the facetime camera after i updated to ios 8.3 apple please fix this issue i am fed up with all your mistakes

i am having problems with my burst mode on my iphone 6 plus it is slower than the facetime camera after i updated to ios 8.3 apple please fix this issue i am fed up with all your mistakes

Gerald
If you had taken time to read the Terms of Use you agreed on joining this Community today you would have realised that Apple is not here
neither reading nor responding on this User Community
http://www.apple.com/feedback/

Hi, my iphone 4s got stollen today. is it possible to track?, hi, my iphone 4s got stollen today. is it possible to track?

hi, my iphone 4s got stollen today. is it possible to track?, hi, my iphone 4s got stollen today. is it possible to track? i had no tracking apps on my phone

If you have an iCloud account (or MobileMe) and had the Find My iPhone app activated, you can go to icloud.com and select the Find My iPhone widget. This will show you the location of the phone.
If you did not have the Find My iPhone turned on, maybe there is something that your carrier can do to triangulate the location, but as far as I know if you had no 3rd party software the only way to track the device is through the Find My iPhone portion of iCloud.

Morning. I download podcast on my iMac and listen to them on my iPhone. Since last week the iPhone plays the podcast back slower than recorded and with a echo. How can I solve this? Regards, Menno

morning. I download podcast on my iMac and listen to them on my iPhone. Since last week the iPhone plays the podcast back slower than recorded and with a echo. How can I solve this?
Regards,
Menno

Hello,
If you're in a country where there's an apple shop (unfortunately not mine), go check it and ask the employee about it: he's gonna check your Iphone on a "device"
I've got an iphone 5 and it's working very well with me but I have to admit that its battery lasts (slower) than my Ipad 2.
Still i can help with some tips that may improve your iohone's battery by an hour in addition (hopefully):
- close all apps by multitasking....
- do NOT keep the brightness to the max
Believe me you're gonna regret changing your phone to a samsung
Hope i've helped and sorry for my bad english (has english as 3rd language)

Is the performance of iOS 6 on iPhone 4 slower than iOS 5?

Is the performance of iOS 6 slower than iOS 5 on iPhone 4 (GSM) ?

I haven't upgraded after a visit to my local Apple store. On playing with the iPhone 5, I found Safari to be very slow so I logged on to their wifi on my 4s running 5.1.1 and loaded the same uncashed webpage on both. iPhone 5 18 seconds and my 4s 8.5!
Hmm, I then tried the same with 2 other 5s, exactly the same. Next I tried a demo 4s running 5.1.1 and it was he same as mine.
Lastly, today I tried a friend's 4s running ios6 and it was way slower than the iPhone 5s in the Apple store.
Conclusion? Keep away from ios 6 for now.

Firefox 23 loads slower than Internet Explorer 10

I was doing a speed test between Firefox 23 and Internet Explorer 10. If you visit http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/PenguinMark/ all addons are disable on Firefox 23 and still slower than internet explorer. Why is that?

I don't know how to interpret my results. I got 1 in Firefox (no snow visible) and 8370 in IE (blizzard). Maybe I'm blocking something?

Got fibre today, far slower than estimated

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for