Poor Wi-fi Performance

Hi all,
I have just installed Lion into my early 2011 MacBook Pro and I noticed my Wi-fi seems slower than usual. I looked at the System Information and I noticed the Wi-fi Card Type shows "Third-Party Wireless Card". Shouldn't it show "AirPort Extreme"? Could this be the problem to my poor Wi-fi Performance?
Thanks

SOLUTION FOUND to MacBook Pro poor Wi-Fi wireless signal.
First, let's talk about the actual problem: too much signal noise. There is a hidden app in OSX called "Wi-Fi Diagnostics" This will tell you everything you need to know why your Wi-Fi is not working!
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5606
HINT: It is included in 10.7, just look for it.
The solution!
Turn off your wi-fi and run your internet through your home's electrical wires. Power-line adapters are devices that turn a home's electrical wiring into network cables for a computer network.
http://reviews.cnet.com/2733-3243_7-568-8.html
I purchased TP-LINK TL-PA511 and for the first time I'm downloading with ALL my internet speed (30mb down / 5mb up) tested via www.speedtest.net. I'M SOOOOO HAPPY!!!!
http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-PA511-Powerline-Starter-Kit/dp/B0081FLFQE/ref=s r_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385395374&sr=8-1&keywords=TP-LINK+TL-PA511

Similar Messages

Nokia 5800 - poor wi-fi performance?

I own both 5800 and E51. Both wi-fi chips are set to Tx 100 mW. I notice that E51 detects more networks, connect to more networks than 5800. I compared the signal strength between the two phones. E51's signal is always 20-30% higher than 5800's. I must say 5800 is quite poor wi-fi performer.

Tough mate you must have a phone with the well known wi-fi poor connection error .
Easy to fix .
jje

ZBook 17 g2 - poor DPC Latency performance when running from z Turbo Drive PCIe SSD

I'm setting up a new zBook 17 g2 and am getting very poor DPC latency performance (> 6000 us) when running from the PCIe SSD. I've re-installed the OS (Win 7 64 bit) on both the PCIe SSD and a SATA HDD and the DPC latency performance is fine when running from the HDD (50 - 100 us) but horrible when running from the PCIe SSD (> 6000 us). I've updated the BIOS and tried every combination of driver and component enabling/disabling I can think of. The DPC latency is extremely high from the initial Windows install with no drivers installed. Adding drivers seems to have no effect on the DPC latency. Before purchasing the laptop I found this review: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-HP-ZBook-17-E9X11AA-ABA-Workstation.106222.0.html where the DPC latency measurement (middle of the page) looks OK. Of course, this is the prior version of the laptop and I believe it does not have the PCIe SSD. Combining that with the fact that I get fine performance when running from the HDD I am led to believe that the PCIe SSD is the cause of the problem. Has anyone found a solution to this problem? As it stands right now my zBook is not usable for digital audio work when running from the PCIe SSD. But it cost me a lot of money so I'd sure like to use it...! Thanks, rgames

Hi mooktank, No solution yet but, as of about six weeks ago, HP at least acknowledged that it's a problem (finally). I reproduced it perfectly on another zBook 17 g2 and another PCIe SSD in the same laptop and HP was able to reproduce the problem as well. So the problem is clearly in the BIOS or with some driver related to the PCIe SSD. It could also be with the firmware in the drive, itself, but I can't find any other PCIe drives in the 60 mm form factor. So there's no way to see if a differnt type of drive would fix the problem. My suspicion is that it's related to the PCIe sleep states - those are known to cause exactly these types of problems because the drive takes quick "naps" to save power and there's a delay when it is told to wake back up. That delay causes a delay in the audio buffer that results in pops/crackles/stutters that would never be noticed doing other tasks like video editing or CAD work . So it's a problem specific to folks who need low-latency audio performance (very few apps require low latency audio - video editing, for example, uses huge buffers with relatively high latency). A lot of desktops offer a BIOS option to disable those sleep states but no such option exists in HP's BIOS for that laptop. In theory you can do it from within Windows but it doesn't have an effect on my system. That might be one of those options that Windows allows you to change but that actually has no effect. One workaround is to disable CPU throttling. That makes the CPU run at full speed all the time and, I believe, also disables the PCIe and other sleep states. When I disable CPU throttling, DPC latency goes back to normal. However, the CPU is then running full-speed all the time so your battery life basically goes to nothing and the laptop gets *very* hot. Clearly that is not necessary because the laptop runs fine from the SATA SSD. HP needs to fix the latency problem associated with the PCIe drive. The next logical step is to provide a BIOS update that provides a way to disable the PCIe sleep states without disabling CPU throttling, like on many desktop systems. The bad news is that HP tech support is not very technical, so it takes forever for them to figure out what I'm talking about. It took a couple months for them to start using the DPC Latency checker. Hopefully there will be a fix at some point... in the meantime, I hope that HP sends me a check for spending so much time educating their techs on how computers work. And for countless hours lost re-installing different OSes only to show that the performance is exactly the same as shown in the DPC Latency checker. rgames

My MacBook Pro Retina has suffered from poor (temperamental) safari performance since purchase.

Because I often use my iPad or iPhone at home the safari issue hasn't really bothered me until recently and now, rather than just being temperamental, performance is just downright poor. It's taken well over 5 minutes to download ordinary BBC web pages on a 100Mbit broadband network. This has become typical and now my kaspersky for mac security can no longer update its database - really annoyed at the prospect of having to get a new machine as I ordered the 2.7 GHz that took over 6 weeks to ship. Still within 6 months of my initial apple care.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
E

Hello Poikkeus,
Thanks for taking an interest and offering to help. Unfortunately, my Mac doesn't seem to be able to download any of the versions of istat citing that safari can't find the server - no luck using chrome either. Safari performance does improve with restarting the machine, however, I really don't want to restart my machine every time I use it; I had hoped that I could open my machine from sleep after using it the previous day without any issues. Is this a reasonable assumption? Occasionally I experience poor performance when using my work PC if I hibernate or log off rather than shut down, however, I expected better from my Mac.
Furthermore, Kaspersky have just informed me that the error messages I receive when my security database fails to update indicates that there is a problem with my broadband connection. However, as I mentioned earlier, I have 100MBit broadband and experience no issues when using my work PC, iPad or iPhone.
I'm guessing I'll have to follow your initial piece of advice and visit the Genius Bar to have them resolve the issue...
Many Thanks

CS4 poor dialog window performance with huge screen dual 30 inch

Hi, I am running dual 30 inch monitors each one at 2560x1600 resolution, on windows xp sp3 on an nvidia quadro FX 3700M (dell precision M6400 laptop)
If I use CS4 from the single laptop screen, everything is fine. However, whenever Im on the huge dual screen desktop any dialog box activity has a very poor performance. For example, I select File>New and the dialog window takes some two to three seconds to draw on the screen... it might not seem like a big problem but it is very very annoying since I am used to the snappy response of the user interface from years of PS use. It really affects my workflow since I work with many files at the same time.
Also, the bigger the dialog window the slower it takes to appear. If I select File > Save for Web and Devices, that dialog window will take up to five seconds to appear on the screen.
The problem seems to get worse the longer the OS has been working, ie. if the PC is freshly booted the problem seems a bit lighter. So it might be related to video card memory or something.
Here's what I have tried so far to solve this:
Since what I'm using is a laptop, the driver choices are limited, however I've been able to force install the 181.20 version of the nvidia driver, but it made no difference. All the official driver versions (176 series) from Dell also have the problem.
The problem doesn't seem related to Photoshop's use of the GPU as the problem remains while the GPU acceleration disabled.
This problem is also present in PS CS3 as well as CS2 CS1 and version 7 which are all I am able to test.
I was able to reproduce this problem on a desktop computer with the same setup on an nvidia quadro FX 5500 card. The dialog box window performance is really terrible.
I did not notice this problem in any other application that spans the two screens, even high end 3d ones.
Ok well it seems from my testing that Photoshop is simply bogged down by having such a huge desktop area to work with. It is really disappointing since PS was my only reason to spend so much money on this dual 30 inch screen setup.
Has anyone else noticed this? Are there any other suggestions? Any adobe support on this?
Thank you

I have tried with both open gl enabled and disabled (edit > preferences > performance)
The problem is present even in Photoshop version 7, I think that one didnt even notice the presence of a 3d accelerator chip.
Both video cards tested have 1GB of video ram.
Thanks.

Why am I Observing Poor Geospatial Query Performance?

Our HANA Rev. 72 Amazon instance is performing very poorly when selecting geospatial polygons from tables. I'm hoping someone out there knows why.
Here's one example. The table below has just 51 records; one for each state (includingPuerto Rico). The table has a GEOMETRY column that contains a polygon outline of the state.
The query below uses ST_Covers() to find the state at a given latitude, longitude. It takes more than 9 seconds to execute!
SELECT STATE_NAME, STATE_FIPS as STATE_ID, SHAPE.ST_AsGeoJSON() as STATE_POLYGON
from GEO_SHAPES.US_STATES where SHAPE.ST_Covers(new ST_Point('POINT(-105.123 39.456)')) = 1
Statement 'SELECT STATE_NAME, STATE_FIPS as STATE_ID, SHAPE.ST_AsGeoJSON() as STATE_POLYGON from ...' successfully executed in 9.326 seconds (server processing time: 8.629 seconds)
Essentially all the time goes into the SHAPE.ST_Covers() function. The same query without this function runs in 6 ms.
Does anybody have any idea why?

JeffKasper wrote:
So I have been running activity monitor and what I am seeing is 40 MB of "Free" RAM with 630 MB "Wired", 2.5 GB "Inactive" and about 5 GB of "Active".
Both "Free" and "Inactive" are (supposed to be) available for use by any process that wants it.
When you first start up, most memory is, of course, "Free." As apps or system processes need memory, that's where OSX gets it. When they release it, however, it does not go back to Free, but to "Inactive" and is identified with the last process that used it. This is done to speed up assigning it back to the previous process if it requests it (which of course is quite common).
So as time passes, you'll see less and less Free memory and more and more Inactive memory; this means your Mac is working properly. In fact, after running for a long time, if there's much Free memory left, it is, in a sense, wasted!
The thing to watch for is Paging. If the "Page outs" figure is high, or changing rapidly, then OSX is having to page stuff out because it's out of both Free and Inactive memory.
A better way to monitor page-outs is via a Terminal command. (The Terminal app is in your Applications/Utilities folder.) Enter the following, exactly as shown, at the prompt:
sar -g 60 10
Leave the terminal window open, then try to re-create the unresponsive problem.
This should tell you if you are doing pageouts. You'll see a line in the Terminal window every 60 seconds for 10 minutes (or until you quit Terminal), showing the number of pageouts per second. A few pageouts is normal. If you have large numbers of pageouts, then you have a memory problem.

Poor CS5 Photoshop Performance

I've exghausted a lot of the pre-made resources on getting good performance from CS5 Photoshop, and unfortunately none of them have worked.
A couple of my end users are having the following issue where everything is delayed, and won't register until they click off the tool they are using, and back onto it. So text size won't update in real time.
The machine is a 3.3 Zeon quadcore processor, 8gb of ram, a Nvidia Quadro FX 1800, with a 150gb drive. I am adding a dedicated scratch disc tonight to see if that helps. (OS is Windows 7 x64.)
I have tried:
Uninstalling, running the uninstall cleanup utility, and re-installing
Updating the graphics drivers
Fiddling with the memory allocation, etc in CS5
Most of these fixes gave us a temporary fix for ~hour or less, and then Photoshop went back to performing poorly. It sounds like an issue with some resource running out, but I can't seem to pinpoint it.

You aren't the first to report this, and it seems to me an inordinately large number having this sluggishness may be using Quadro FX cards, but that may just be my flawed memory acting up.
You might want to search for "sluggish" or "cursor lag" in this forum to try to get a feel for what you have in common.
-Noel

Poor dual screen performance CS3

I really tried looking around for an answer to this but haven't found one, yet.
Anyway, I'm experiencing some very poor performance in all of my Adobe CS3 applications, but I use Photoshop the most and it's getting grating. It can take upwards of 10 seconds just to make a blank to document, 5 seconds just to open the layer styles dialog and 2 or 3 seconds to switch tools or options within dialogs.
However when painting with the brush, typing or using filters the performance isn't so bad and is close to how it behaved before I hooked up my second monitor. Starting up seems to go pretty fast.
My system specs are:
Windows XP Pro w/ SP3
6 GB RAM letting PS use 979MB (58%)
GFX card is a nVidia GeForce 7950GT with 512MB of memory with 3d acceleration on (on or off doesn't affect the issue)
CPU is AMD Athlon64 x2 @ 2.2Ghz
Primary monitor is an Acer 22" widescreen @ 1680x1050 (the one I use PS on) and secondary is an Optiquest 19" @ 1280X1024.
There's plenty of free disk space on my scratch disks video drivers are up to date (as of a few months ago, anyway).
When I disable or unhook the second monitor everything is fast but I'd rather not have to deal with having to disable my monitor just to run PS.
Thanks in advance.

It is 32bit Windows. While it may be a video card issue, I doubt it. Games such as Half-life 2, Fallout 3, and Fear 2 all run well on this set up. Also, I realize that I have more RAM than a 32 bit system will use but that's just how the number of sticks I have works out (2 x 2GB and 2 x 1GB).
Also, I looked and I have the most up to date drivers that support this video card.
I'll playing with the memory settings in PS and see if anything improves.
I probably should also add that the windows (layers, navigator, swatches and all that) will flash and go blank for a second or two while PS struggles with opening a dialog or opening another document.

Very poor SMB share performance on 3TB time capsule.

Hi,
Is the SMB shares performance on time capsule suposed to be very poor compared to the AFP shares?
My TC will to around 9MB/s transfers using AFP, but on SMB it will do around 1.25MB/s (varies from a few KB/s to peaks of 4MB/s).
I tested both protocols using a ethernet cable connected from my macbook pro directly to the TC.
This is a 3TB time capsule runing firmware 7.6.1, and I did a factory reset before my tests.
Time machine backups were disabled during the tests.
I need SMB for my WDTV media players.

I would not say it is supposed to be.. but you are probably correct that it is very poor.. This issue crops up time and again,,, but not from people running Macs generally.. it is windows that is the problem.
A few things to check.
1. Are the names actually SMB correct?? ie short, no spaces, pure alphanumeric. Both TC name and wireless names if you use wireless.
2. Workgroup set correctly. ie WORKGROUP .. this probably doesn't come up with the Mac but affects most PC connections and possibly the WD TV
3. How old is the TC? If it is an early release Gen 4, you can take it back to 7.5.2 firmware.. frankly much of the trouble was introduced with Lion.. as they changed the SAMBA setup.. I would test from the WDTV.. or a PC.. if it doesn't glitch you are doing better than the Mac can do.. ie the reading in the Mac is pure Lion Lunacy.. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3206668?start=0&tstart=0
One of those apple changes that shows.. they hardly test anything anymore. Do a google search for Lion SMB fix.

Poor OEL5-3 performance when using over 1Gb of RAM

Hi, I have a Linux distribution ( Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.3 i.e. Redhat ) that I have installed. It works fine when I used 2*512Mb dimms or replace them with a single 1Gb dimm. However when I try to go above 1 Gb the bootup and general performance deteriorates badly. The BIOS picks up the memory changes ok and I am using the same type of memory sticks. It makes no difference if I load a single memory channel with the 2 sticks or balance the sticks over the 2 channels - I still get poor performance. When I return to 1Gb of RAM performance is great
In terms of install I just followed the Oracle Release note and Readme on the DVD itself. To be honest they are incredibly basic. There does not appear to be any specific OEL 5-3 installation manual on Technet. I simply followed the prompts on scereen and choose a default install
I have seen quite a few hits concerning problems with performance over 1Gb for Linux such as having to enable Highmem support in the kernel - however I have not seen any instruction how to check or do this - any ideas ?

jimthompson wrote:
Hi, I have a Linux distribution ( Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.3 i.e. Redhat ) that I have installed. It works fine when I used 2*512Mb dimms or replace them with a single 1Gb dimm. However when I try to go above 1 Gb the bootup and general performance deteriorates badly. The BIOS picks up the memory changes ok and I am using the same type of memory sticks. It makes no difference if I load a single memory channel with the 2 sticks or balance the sticks over the 2 channels - I still get poor performance. When I return to 1Gb of RAM performance is great
In terms of install I just followed the Oracle Release note and Readme on the DVD itself. To be honest they are incredibly basic. There does not appear to be any specific OEL 5-3 installation manual on Technet. I simply followed the prompts on scereen and choose a default install
I have seen quite a few hits concerning problems with performance over 1Gb for Linux such as having to enable Highmem support in the kernel - however I have not seen any instruction how to check or do this - any ideas ?I still might have a concern about your hardware:
Your two 512M sticks are undoubtably well matched and live comfortably together. Hopefully they did actually use dual channel mode.
Your 1G lives well on its own as well
However for the greater than 1G, ie 1G + 0.5G you may be using 2 sticks that do not live well together and are causing isses with delayed response. (At worst can only 0.5G is being recognised - (use grep MemTotal /proc/meminfo if necessary to check) ). In general issues seem better with DDR2 than with earlier memory in this regard. I suppose timing with memtest86 might be an interesting metric. I must admit myself i'd prefer to use 1g+1g or even 2g + 2g (i know on 32bit I might not see it all) rather than 1g+2g or 1g+0.5g.
Anyway what I am trying to say is that hardware should not be eliminated as a possible cause at this stage.
Rgds - bigdelboy

Poor play/pause performance with iPhone mic button clicker

I am experiencing poor performance with my headset button on my 3G iPhone. The pause / play / skip track functionality works very intermittently for me. I have tried all different kinds of click speeds with no improvement.
It seems to be worst when the iPhone is locked and I click once to resume playing.
I am running 2.1 software and doing a hard restart does not help.
Faulty headphones?

the iphone clicker wears out really quick...
you might want to invest in some non apple headphones, or perhaps just a new microphone and clicker, like the shure one that's just come out...
http://www.iphoneuserguide.com/apple/2008/09/19/iphone3g/convert-your-headphones -to-a-mobile-headset-with-the-shure-music-phone-adapter-for-iphone/

Poor WebApplicationDesigner Frontend Performance

Hi everybody,
I'm working on a big template for my customer (nearly 6000 lines of code now) and I'm facing the problem of a poor performance of the webapplicationdesigner. When clicking on the attribute-window or adding an item, it takes up to ten seconds before the wad reacts. Working directly in the code is impossible, after placing the cursor in the text, I can wait 30 seconds, after that I'm able to type a character, wait 30 seconds again and so on.
It seems as the wad validates the code every time a new character was inserted. Do you have any ideas, how to solve my problem?
My sap-logon is version 7.10, bex-tools are on supportpackage 13. The BI-System ABAP-Stack uses the supportpackage 22 and java-stack 20.

I don't know if it's related, but have you tried specific fonts for Chinese like the arphic fonts?
Also, is freetype enabled in firefox? This would also help I guess http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_F … fox_1.0.2B.
EDIT, don't just copy that since it's quite specific. Try enabling freetype2, autohinted and disable unhinted in about:config first. See http://opensuse-community.org/SubpixelH … figuration.
Last edited by semdornus (2008-05-18 01:43:08)

Very poor Random IO performance of 24 HDD Mirror-2 CSV on Win2012 R2 (Solved)

We already have a 2 separate Win2012 Mirror-2 Storage Clusters (in production) and had noted that performance was very poor.
We were looking to upgrade to Win2012R2 and storage tiering, we wanted to understand why the storage systems were performing so poorly. So, we have not built out a new storage cluster, with 2 nodes, 3 JBODs and 24 x2TB Seagate ES2 SAS drives.
We have run IOMeter to measure IOPs and the numbers are very poor, regardless of the 'geometries' we choose. Our Write IOPs results for 16KB block (this our typical DB page size) are:
2 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1043
2 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1176
4 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1424
4 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1688
8 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1677
We only tested Write IO because this should be the slowest/worse case IOPs values.
We also tested each HDD individually and they range between 270 and 330 IOPs.
By our math, the IOPs values should be in the range of 3000-3600 == 24 HDDs x IOPs/HDD div by 2 [for mirror-2], but the tested are showing values which are barely 50% of this.
Any assistance/tips would be appreciated.

We already have a 2 separate Win2012 Mirror-2 Storage Clusters (in production) and had noted that performance was very poor.
We were looking to upgrade to Win2012R2 and storage tiering, we wanted to understand why the storage systems were performing so poorly. So, we have not built out a new storage cluster, with 2 nodes, 3 JBODs and 24 x2TB Seagate ES2 SAS drives.
We have run IOMeter to measure IOPs and the numbers are very poor, regardless of the 'geometries' we choose. Our Write IOPs results for 16KB block (this our typical DB page size) are:
2 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1043
2 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1176
4 columns, 64KB Interleave = 1424
4 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1688
8 columns, 256KB Interleave = 1677
We only tested Write IO because this should be the slowest/worse case IOPs values.
We also tested each HDD individually and they range between 270 and 330 IOPs.
By our math, the IOPs values should be in the range of 3000-3600 == 24 HDDs x IOPs/HDD div by 2 [for mirror-2], but the tested are showing values which are barely 50% of this.
Any assistance/tips would be appreciated.
16KB I/Os never touch the whole RAID stripe so that's why you see virtually never performance increase (I;m surprised you actually see any). Try using bigger request size to see would it make any difference. You need multiple workers and deep I/O queues.
What are you I/O Meter settings for test except write size?
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

Poor Time Capsule Performance in a Roaming Configuration

I have a bit of an odd problem. I recently added a Time Capsule (4th Gen) to my network alongside my existing Airport Extreme (4th Gen). Both devices are set in Bridge Mode and connected to a 1000Base-T backbone which accesses the Internet through my AT&T U-Verse gateway (WiFi off). My intention is to have the devices in a roaming network with the AE upstairs and the TC downstairs in my office.
Coverage-wise this has been excellent, but performance has not been up to par. Through a great deal of troubleshooting, hair-pulling, and even a replacement TC, I have determined that, for some reason, the TC has trouble forwarding my frames if it is on the same SSID as the AE. (Which is, of course, a required for a real roaming network.)
Both devices are running 7.6 firmware and I have manually set the radio channels at the far extremes from each other in both bands to rule out interference. My neighbors' APs are still visible, but aren't causing any intereference in those bands.
If I configure both devices with identical WiFi settings (SSID, WPA2-Personal, PSK, etc.) devices that are associated with the TC experience very poor performance. The radio part of the connection is great. (Strong signal, low noise, etc.) Data throughput is awful, though. Web pages won't load, and when I ping local devices on the wired side of the network I'm lucky to get 500ms round-trip. Most of the pings are in the >1000ms range with many timeouts.
Devices connected to the AE, however, average about 1ms round-trip to the same devies and see no issues getting to the Internet or transfering files locally. In fact, Time Machine backups work just fine to the TC.
That said, if I simply change the SSID for the TC radio, leaving *everything else* the same, it works like a dream. Unfortunately, that isn't exactly the roaming network I would like to have.
Has anybody else seen this behavior or have any ideas on how to fix it? I'm stumped. What really concerns me is that I've seen this with two different TCs.
For the record, I have already reflashed, defaulted, and configured both devices from scratch with no change in performance.

Replying to my own post is probably bad juju, but I thought I'd provide an update for those who may have also seen this issue.
First, it turns out that having the separate SSIDs didn't actually matter. WIthin a day or two of my OP, the Time Capsule on the separate SSID began exhibiting the same problem as before. It seems that this is part of the problem. When it occurs it can take a few days to a week to turn up, but it can also happen right away.
Eventually, the Time Capsule began to exhibit other issues as well. For instance, in my testing, I would need to reboot it to apply new settings, but it would hang on a reboot for 20 minutes or more and I would have to pull the power cable. I finally called Apple and they replaced it again.
When the new Time Capsule arrived, everything seemed to work well, but before I was even able to get the backups moved from the old one to the new one, the problem showed up on the new one.
At this point, I found a few forum threads where other people were having similar problems and were able to get around them by downgrading form firmware 7.6 to 7.5.2. I was about to try that when Apple released 7.6.1.
On a whim, I decided to try the new release, even though Apple only referred to vague WiFi performance fixes. I have to say that I noticed immediate improvement across the board.
So far, so good. I am hopeful that the new 7.6.1 is the fix to the problem.

Poor internet wifi performance

After iOS update internet performance on iPad4 has become very poor, to the point of being unacceptable, ( taking 10mins to get to this point).
SOlutions anybody?!

Hi Go to Settings Reset Network Settings on iPad After Reset you need to enter your Router wireless key Also turn Router off for 30 seconds Also an option go on website for your make of Router check for a Firmware upgrade. Cheers Brian

Poor Wi-fi Performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for