Speed disappointment

I talked my sister into getting a iMac 24" 2.16GHz. (Her first Mac)
After showing her how to use it, I decided to do a test to see how much speed I would gain if I got one.
I brought along a copy of an iMovie/iDVD project on a FW disk and copied the whole thing to the HD on her new Mac.
I then tested the speed of rendering a 2 hour video (36 gig iMovie project) which my Mac takes around 6 hours to compress and encode before it begins to burn the DVD.
I was looking for a HUGE speed boost that would convince me to shell out the $2000.00 to get one for myself.
Using her computer, I would only save about 30 minutes.
I guess for $500.00 more I could get a MacPro which has Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processors, but would I see any REAL increase in speed?

.. Can't,,, my projects are usually HUGE and require "Best Quality" setting which does not 'pre-render' unless I am not understanding what you mean. ..
QT/Full Quality, yepp, that's what I meant.. though, iDVD allows only a max. of 120min, the file couldn't be larger than 26GB... usual advice for video makers: more harddrive space, much more hdd space, moooooore...
as said. if you hand-over a complex iM project with lots of different files and formats, you increase the encoding time; and on my German board, I read the advice to avoid mp3 in iM projects, cause those could slow down iDVD dramatically... (one guy converts every audio import into aiff... before usage...) ...
but....
PC-guys LOVE to discuss 'speed', I never ever had any concerns about speed on my Mac..
as long as you don't render a CGI hairy KingKong or calculate the weather in the year 2020, speed is - imho - no criteria... as you said: a Mac product looks better, more professional, 'feels' better...
those 'nerds', watching their activity meters, are faster, so what - but what do they CREATE faster...? benchmarks... ??
give'em a break with those:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamacads2/work480x376.mov
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/betterresults_480x376.mov
aaand 'Mac'/Justin Long is partner of Bruce Willis in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337978/ , Yippee Ki Yay M.. ;))

Similar Messages

Very Slow Time Capsule WiFi Speeds - Disappointing

Hi,
I've read a lot about this in the TC posts, but have yet to see a solution. The wireless speeds on my 1TB TC is solidly slower than my old Linksys router. Whereas my Linksys can manage speeds greater than 12,000kb/s, the TC can only manage around 6 max. Most of the time, it's much slower. I've disabled backups, and nothing is different other than removing the Linksys, and replacing it with the TC. Needless to say, this is very troubling. And yes, I've applied the recent airport update to my mac, and the system update to the TC.
Has anyone found a solution for this, and if not, has Apple confirmed this as an issue.
Help!

OK, I'm not sure about this, it's just speculation, but I have an idea. The problem with AEBS, and why it couldn't be used to backup to USB drives reliably, is that the data being sent there was not acknowledged, i.e. there was no receipt from Airport saying, "I successfully received that data." I would imagine lots of wireless routers don't bother acknowledging - if the data gets lost, another request will surely get sent again. ACKs tend to slow things down - satellite cable modems even pre-acknowledge packets due to TCP's problem with ACK latency. TCP requires decent timing and ACKs to perform well. But you can't have that on a backup solution. You need to ACK the data. So the TC (and now with the firmware upgrade, AirDisk) have to ACK the data, which slows things down, which makes your wireless seem slower. Again, this is all just speculation, but I think it's a reasonable theory.

FW 800 speed disappointing: controller to blame?

I had many of my images backed up on a 1TB external HDD with a FW 400 port. Running out of space, I copied all the images to a new 2TB external HDD with a FW 800 port.
Then I duplicated those files from the 2TB external HDD with a FW 800 port to a 2nd 2TB external HDD with a FW 800 port via the Finder (the two 2TB external HDDs with FW 800 ports were daisy chained together). The transfer of files from the FW 800 to the 2nd FW 800 external HDD was slower than the transfer of files from the FW 400 to the FW 800 external HDD.
This indicated to me that the FW 800 controller in the iMac was perhaps very busy communicating with both drives for every bit moved instead of the the two FW 800 HDDs communicating between themselves with the iMac's controller providing oversight. Is this the case because if it is, I'll be sure to not to dasiy chain FW 800 HDD together and instead connect one to the FW 400 port of my iMac. I miss SCSI (but not SCSI voodoo).

Also, the HDDs involved were:
The FW800 HDDs were both Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex with a FireWire 800/USB 2.0 adapter. The specifications according to Best Buy are 7200 RPM with a 32MB cache.
The FW400 HDD was a Western Digital My Book Home Edition. WD doesn't have specifications for it but I've read that the speed can vary "from 5400 to 7200 RPM" and the cache can vary "8 MBytes to 32 MBytes".

Slow & erratic speeds - very disappointed in switch to FiOS so far

I finally decided to try out FiOS and switched from Optimum 2 days ago. I have been running some speed tests to see if everything is working as it should and came back with poor results.
I am paying for 50/25 and am typically getting between 20-40 Mbps download (with 1 exception which I will get to later). I have run speed tests on speedtest.net and other sites, always choosing nearby servers. My results have been very erratic. On Optimum I consistently got high 50's d/l all the time on all servers. On FiOS, I often get as low as 6-8 Mbps download. A lot of times my d/l speed is MUCH less than my upload speed (for example: 8 down and 26 up).
However, if I choose to test to the optimum online server, I consistently get high 50's download and high 20's upload, which is what I expect. Not sure what's going on here - it's almost as though Optimum is begging me to come back - which I will do unless this gets solved.
Just spent an hour with tech support. Did all the usual resetting/rebooting stuff, ran the optimizer, checked RWIN (although I'm on Win 7 which makes this moot), etc. Now they want to send a tech out at the end of the week b/c they think it could be something with the house wiring. I'm not sure I agree, since I AM getting full speed when I test to the optimum.com server.
Oh - and ping is a lot higher. Seeing 30-60ms vs 10ms on Optimum.
Any ieas on what the problems could be? Came in with high hopes and getting disappointed quickly. 28 days before I have to decide to keep or toss...

You say "of course," but you didn't mention wired or wifi in either of your earlier posts and similar problems are often related to wifi vagaries. Anyway....
It sounds like we may be in the same area. I also had Optimum once-upon-a-time and, for whatever it's worth, since switching to FiOS I've found my speeds to be much more consistent than they were with OOL.
Yes...there is some variation from speed test server to server but I would suggest that is the nature of the Internet, and specific servers, and not a Verizon problem.
I usually test with speedtest.net and let it pick the server with the lowest ping. That is indeed Optimum's New York server at times. Other times it chooses other servers in the NY area. In every case, though, I always get at least the 75/35 speeds I'm paying for.
It sounds to me like what you're seeing could be saturation at certain speed tests servers in the evening. What I would suggest you do, for a real world test, is find a file server that will saturate your bandwidth and try it in the evening. Something like a file server from Microsoft, or Corel, etc. etc. If I do that, and measure my speed with DU Meter, I always get the same download speed, regardless of the time of day. Here's one example:
I can also run the same test uploading to a couple of servers I have available, and I get the same real world results.
If you're still not satisfied that you're getting what you're paying for from Verizon, I'm sure OOL will be happy to have you back. That's the beauty of competition.

Disappointing WRT610N Gigabit Ethernet speed

I'm very disappointed with the wired Gigabit speed on this WRT610N router. I've got three high end Gigabit capable computers connected to the router via the wired interfaces and the best speed I can get is from any system to another is 38% of Gigabit maximum (~46 MBytes/s). I've tried numerous protocols (SMB, FTP, SSH) all with about the same results. This must be some hardware limit of the router. Is there any way to increase this speed? I really don't want to buy another router just to get good quality ethernet speeds.
PS: All cables are quality CAT6.
TIA,
Vidmo
Message Edited by Vidmo on 10-12-2008 09:40 AM

the ethernet switch BCM53115 is used on the wrt610N
this same switch is also used on the wrt320N router.
The hardware does support jumbo frames, however linksys did not enabled this in the firmware's.
pdf switch
http://www.dutchmans.serverthuis.nl/BCM53115.pdf
to bad we have to complane that jumbo frames is not enabled.

SO disappointed in MacbookPro Speeds

After years of being a dell loyalist I upgraded to a retina MacBook Pro yesterday (the 8gb ram, 250ssd version). After all the hype I've read, I could not be more disappointed in the speed of the product I've received. It takes ~30 seconds for the system to boot, and 15 for it to shut down. I can live with the shut down time, but 30 seconds to boot is ridiculous. My sata hd, 4gb ram, 2.3 ghz boots at about that speed, there's no reason for anything with an ssd to boot this slowly. What gives?

Sounds as if you got a lemon. You have 14 days in which to return the machine for an exchange or refund. If I were you, I would exchange it and see if the new machine suffers the same problems (It really shouldn't).
Good luck,
Clinton

Disappointing MSI GTX 660 TF3 clock speeds / voltage, not on par with others

Hi,
I wanted to ask why is there suck a disperency between my GTX 660 TF3 speeds/voltage compared to other people.
My max boost clock is 1123.5 whereas most references i found are above 1150/60+ in average
My max voltage under full load in GPU-Z is 1.162 whereas others got 1.175
Is it linked to my poor ASIC of 68.8% ?
Currently disappointed because i thought that by buying an MSI card (premium priced in my country) i would got better clocks or at least clocks in the average range of other users. I guess i'm just unlucky, but being a bit burnt now, i think i'll pass and try another brand next time.
That said, is it normal that my card doesnt even reach a voltage of 1.175 under full load ???
Thanks in advance for your reply, and merry christmas anyways.

Quote from: zigzagzap on 26-December-12, 05:30:34
Thank you for the reply, but talking to me about overclock is a bit off-topic dont you think?
not really as the boost clock is an automatic overclock (the boost clock is down to the GPU as well, some will hit the target of 1150MHz some wont)!
Quote from: zigzagzap on 26-December-12, 05:30:34
Under stock presets (no-overclock-at-all), all of them have cards that got a 1.175 voltage under full load whereas mine is only 1.162
Even when you look at reviews on internet, you can see that they list 1.175v as STOCK voltages under full load in their default specs sheet for that MSI card.
All in all, gotta ask again, is it normal for my card to not run at 1.175v on stock presets? Yes/no?
like i said it depends on the individual GPU! most will run at 1.175V under load normally but some wont as its very random as no 2 are identical and the voltage the core asks for is very random from sample core to sample core!
its all luck of the draw..... <--- seen some referance cards that will out perform full custom ones.
if you not satisfied >>How to contact MSI.<< contact them and if you wan't a replacement then they will tell you how to go about it! <--- no expected voltages or clock speeds are ever fully garenteed as the newer GPU's are all over the place.

I am extremely disappointed with my imac's speed. should i upgrade the RAM?

I bought this lovely machine so that when i come back home, i can push aside my 12" toshiba work laptop and enjoy working on my music and photos and internet browsing on the imac.
the music (ipod +itunes) and browsing works great, but as soon as i get onto iphoto (v5.0.4), it just takes years to get anything done and sometimes it just closes down on me. i have times that colourful round ball rotaing at times for over 40 minutes! i have just 8,000 photos and i just cannot use iphoto at all. also, i'm not all that savvy (or inclined) to try and figure out other softwares - i just assumed that apple's own software and hardware would combine really well in an application that it is really well known for (digital imaging).
so do you reckon it's a hardware issue (RAM or something like that) or that iphoto isn't upto the task? i would use another software for organising the photos if necessary, but i do quite like the way in which iphoto does the organising - when it works.
hope someone out there has some ideas for me!
cheers

Thank you all for the replies! I'm going to work through what each of you have suggested and see how much it helps. The 40 minutes of processing time is not an exaggeration. In fact, it sometimes takes longer than that - but I think it's hanging - so i've forcibly shut down the application.
Al - cheers for your immediate tips - they have certainly helped. I disallowed other shared libraries, dropped the shadow and reduced the photo size to approximately a small thumbnail and the speed has most certainly improved! it still takes a few minutes every now and then, but it's decidedly better.
Dan - I'll try Onyx (first i'll figure out what it is!) to clean things up, i imagine.
Jerry, thanks for the tip on iphoto buddy. i'll certainly try it when i have the time. it'll also help me keep the photos i don't want everyone to see aside, i imagine!
And Rod - these are all jpegs from my NikonD70, i haven't started shooting RAW as yet, as i have to figure out how to process those first! I'll probably upgrade the RAM to 2gigs and to ilife'06 in the next week or two. I'll go through the routine that you suggested for checking for directory corruption as well.
Thanks a lot to all of you! i'm sure i'll be back on track very soon!
cheers,
sidlal

Are U disappointed with speeds on your iPhone ?

I ask because I have a Blackberry 9530 which is basically good for only talk and text. Web speeds are very slow sometimes unuseable. I'm looking to upgrade to a newer smartphone and the iPhone 4 I know would be a good option since I do a lot in Itunes. However I'm thinking I should wait for the 4G LTE iPhone 5 to come out.
However again, if users are generally happy with the speeds of the 3G network, maybe I should go ahead and get one.

The web browsing experience on blackberry is about 100x worse than the webkit based browsers on phones running iOS, Android and WebOS. Even on 3G, you'll notice a significant difference in daily browsing between the iPhone and the Storm.

Disappointed in broadband speed

Here in the middle of Salem Or, (capital po Oregon). and the speed is very slow.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/880897183.png
Other spots are the same in this area, The fastest I have measured here is maybe .5 mp up.
Other locations in other states I have measured over 1 mb...even seen as high as 1.5mb
What is wrong? It i frustrating. thanks

pretty stinky numbers.... how far are you from the tower?
when you bought this - did they say anything about what kind of connect speeds to expect?
30 days to return it?
How you tried it in other locations.??? outside your house...??? etc

Disappointing burn speeds...

Hi all,
I bought a MBP 17" CD last month, and I can only burn DVDs at 2x speeds. So far I have tried two different media types TDK and Nexxtech. Both are rated at 8x, but both only burn at 2x. Both are DVD-R.
My laptop has the following burner:
MATSHITADVD-R UJ-846 revision FQ3T
Any ideas on how to make it burn faster? Is this something I can take back and have replaced because of faulty performance? The laptop is rated (on box and receipt as having 8X burn speeds). My 15" MBP even burns these same DVDs at 4x (being limited by it's 4x burner).
I do not own toast, so my burn speeds are coming from the finder itself.
thanks for the help,
-Me

bigj6360,
I'll start off by letting you know that there is nothing wrong with your particular MBP or optical drive. This is an issue that is common to all Matshita (Toshiba) drives.
The isssue is that the drive will not recognize media labeled as "up to 16 X" as anything but 2 X. We all know that "up to 16 X" includes support for 8 X, but the drive does not. This is not Apple's problem, strictly speakng, but rather Toshiba's; they need to release a firmware update to their drives to fix this problem. Apple needs to include it in a software update.
That said, there are a few things that you can try. First, look on the internet for older 8X media. Any that you can find should burn quite well at 8x, but I recommend Verbatim media, as have others. I can attest that this media will consistently burn at 8X with your Matshita drive (it does with mine).
I recommend that you purchase all of the 8X DVD-R media you think you'll ever need now, before stocks run out. I am not certain that manufacturers are still producing media at this speed (it is certainly impossible to find it in stores any more). I suggest you purchase one "batch" now to test in your drive. If it appears to work as expected, you can then stock up.
Scott
p.s. This media can still be found in some Sam's Clubs, but it has been discontinued in favor of Verbatim 16 X. -s

AirPort Extreme 802.11n - disappointing connection speeds in Windows

I have just set up a brand new AirPort Extreme and, with my MacBook Pro running OS X10.6.5 I am getting excellent reception and a full 300 Mbits/s connection speed throughout the house. When I boot the MBP into Windows 7, though the reception is still very good, I only get 130 Mbits/s maximum speed. Is there any good reason why performance is so much poorer in 7 than in OS X using the same hardware? All drivers are up to date as far as I can tell.

It seems my initial 300 Mbits/s connection speed was just a short lived phenomenon and now my connection seems to have settled at 130 Mbits/s for both OS X and 7. I also logged my iMac on to the wireless network (though it is usually hard wired) and that initially declared a speed 270 Mbits/s, then briefly 300, but quickly reduced to 130 Mbits/s despite being right next to the AirPort unit. Is there anything I can do to try to restore the higher speeds?

Disappointing Speeds

We signed up for Infinity Option 2 a few weeks ago, with an estimated upload speed of 18 mbps. On 3rd October an engineer arrived and my Infinity service was started.
3 days later I am looking at my stats and there seems to be a huge problem with my upload speed which is only 7.54 mbps, only 42% of the 18 mbps estimate and way short of my maximum acheivable speed of 20 mbps.
Our master socket is about 10 metres from the nearest green street cabinet so I am surprised that we are not maxing out here.

BT won't do antything until 10 days have passed.
Looking at the speed tests youve provided there is something wrong with either your PC or the speed test.
If on Infinity 1 the upload IP would show as 10Mbps and on Infinity 2 as 20Mbps even if those speeds were unachievable.
Get back after the 10 days if things are still the same.
In the meantime you could try ONE reboot of the modem. I would also recommend a direct connection to the modem at the same time by setting up a PPPoE session on your PC. If you need help with that get back here and either I or someone else will advise you on the setup but a forum search should take you to it.
This would rule out a router problem. Also turn off any third party Antivirus and Firewall for the duration of the speedtest (don't forget to turn it back on).

DAQmx Disappointing Single Measurement Speed

I'm experimenting with DAQmx. I'd like to do arbitrary operations, i.e. do some singe measurements on chn. 3, a daq on 3 and 6, then maybe some single on 6 etc.
With the traditional DAQ using AI_VRead my code takes 0.16 ms per single read, using DAQmx takes 5.40 ms.
The DAQmx code currently does the full DAQmxCreateTask -> DAQmxCreateAIVoltageChan -> DAQmxStartTask -> DAQmxReadAnalogScalarF64 -> DAQmxClearTask cycle every time. The only way to optimize this is to precreate x Tasks, configure them and keep them at the verified state so they don't lock the hardware.
Or is there a far better way to do this?
/* Nothing past this point should fail if the code is working as intended */

Thanks for your ideas. But I see some problems.
One Task with all channels works with outputs, but with inputs on most cards you divide the sample clock by the number of channels you capture. Also you'll have to have on Task per card if you have multiple threads doing different things at the same time (not unsolvable, though).
With one Task per channel you'll have to synchronize the tasks so they capture multiple channels as one task with multiple channels would do. Say you have to capture two analog signals and have to rate their voltage levels and determine the direction of rotation by comparing the rising edges. And visualize the signals.
But can multiple tasks use the same clock source? If so, how do you make them start at the same clock edge?
/* Nothing past this point should fail if the code is working as intended */

AppleScript speed difference between 10.4 & 10.5

This post is related to a question I posed in March 2009 (https://discussions.apple.com/message/9226100) regarding the speed difference between AppleScript text handling in OS X 10.5 compared with 10.4.11.
I have recently written a script to search through a text file which is an xml file exported from WorkGroup Manager. The file, which is approximately 1.8 MB, contains all the user names on the school server (just over 1720 of them), their settings and any other information we have added. After adapting some script ideas (using text delimiters and offsets) which I found on the internet to assist with counting the number of users and searching through the information of each one, one at a time, I have a script which works far in excess of my expectations in terms of speed when run under OS X 10.4, but runs slower than molasses in winter under 10.5.
The script counts the number of accounts, extracts each user's log-in name and also their actual name (which we have entered under a 'general info' or 'comments' field - I can't remember exactly where, but it is stored in the file), makes up a complete list of all account names (with the actual name, if present) and also makes up a subset of this information into a separate list which contains only the log-in names of those whose actual name has not yet been recorded on the server, then saves both lists to separate text files.
My original attempts, using some rather clumsy text searching and comparison techniques, took about 1-2 minutes to go through the whole procedure. After some internet searching, head-scratching and a bit more more work, the finished script, when run on my G5 under OS X 10.4.11, takes less than 3 seconds to do all I have described above, including the writing to text files. To say I was pleased would be an understatement!
Because the school/work environment, where the script would be run, is all OS X 10.5 or higher, I thought I should test it out under at least OS X 10.5. The script was developed on my DP 2.5GHz G5 with 8GB RAM running OS X 10.4.11. Using a fresh, clean installation of 10.5 I ran the script and was extremely disappointed. After letting it run for more than 20 minutes and still not finishing, I force quit AppleScript and reduced the number of accounts in the file. 40 accounts took 3 seconds, 60 accounts took 6 seconds, 80 took 11 seconds, 100 took 19 seconds and 120 took 27 seconds. I eventually let the script run right through - total time taken to process 1720 users was 65 minutes, compared to 3 seconds under 10.4.11!
Given that it was tested on the same Mac, with the same amount of RAM, using the same script and the same original text file, the only variable left (that I can think of) is the change of OS version - 10.4.11 vs 10.5.
As was pointed out to me in my previous post, AppleScript in OS X 10.5 handles all text as Unicode and has a greater overhead in processing time as a result. I have implemented the various bits of advice offered by respondents to my original post and changed the way I handled lists, etc. Obviously, if the script works so speedily under 10.4.11, I must have done something right in terms of code optimization/efficiency. It's when that exact same script is run under OS X 10.5 that it slows down incredibly. I even tried it on a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac running 10.5.8 - it still took 40 minutes and Activity Monitor showed CPU usage by Script Editor constantly above 80% (often well above 90%). Saving the script as an application made no difference in the time taken.
Does anybody have any knowledge about what makes AppleScript Unicode-only text handling so slow? In this case, it is 1300 times slower! Is there any way of coercing/restricting the text handling/parsing to ASCII? If I really have to, I will set up a humble eMac at school with 10.4 on it just to handle large text files quickly with AppleScript, but I would prefer to be able to do it on the normal work Macs which have 10.5 or later on them. As mentioned, under 10.4.11 the script processes the 1.8MB text file with 1720 users and writes results to two files - all within 3 seconds, so I'm not really looking for coding suggestions unless they are directly related to what has changed in AppleScript under OS X 10.5. Without sounding too smug, the script works properly and speedily (at least in 10.4). I really would like to learn about the changes in AppleScript in OS X 10.5 and how to cope with or work around those changes.

Hi,
text 3 thru 14 in largeText
character 3 thru 14 in largeText
text 3 in largeText
character 3 in largeText
These lines will be slow on Leopard
Getting some text in a variable that contains more than 60000 characters will be slower on Leopard,
but I don't know why it's slower
Here a test script.
script o
    property t_text : ""
end script
set a to "abcdefghij"
set tResult to ""
repeat with i from 1 to 3
    set o's t_text to a
    repeat (item i of {17, 15, 14}) times
        set o's t_text to o's t_text & o's t_text -- add characters in the variable
    end repeat
    set StartTime to current date
    -- test
    repeat 20 times
        set b to text 3 thru 14 in o's t_text -- get a text in the variable
    end repeat
    -- end test
    set EndTime to current date
    set TimeTaken to EndTime - StartTime
    set tResult to tResult & " Getting text in the variable which contains " & length of o's t_text & ", (20 times) = " & TimeTaken & " seconds." & return
end repeat
tResult
Here the result on my old G5, 2 x 1.8 GHZ
Getting text in the variable which contains 1310720 characters, (20 times) = 50 seconds.
Getting text in the variable which contains   327680 characters, (20 times) = 12 seconds.
Getting text in the variable which contains   163840 characters, (20 times) =   6 seconds.
The result on the same machine on Tiger is always less of one second.
Also, I try with 20 millions characters on Tiger, the result : getting text in the variable which contains 20971520 characters, (20 times) = 0 seconds.
The solution ( text item in a list)
Here the script
script o
    property my_List : {}
end script
set OldDelims to text item delimiters
set RecordDelimiter to "::::::::::::::"
set LengthOfRecordDelimiter to length of RecordDelimiter
set o's my_List to findAll(read (choose file), RecordDelimiter)
on findAll(str, findString)
    set Oldtid to text item delimiters
    try
        set text item delimiters to findString
        if str does not contain findString then return {"Nothing found"}
        set t to str's text items
        set text item delimiters to Oldtid
        return t
    on error eMsg number eNum
        set text item delimiters to Oldtid
        error "Can't findAll: " & eMsg number eNum
    end try
end findAll
set NumberOfrecords to (count o's my_List)
display dialog "There are " & NumberOfrecords & " accounts."
set StartTime to current date
set text item delimiters to ":"
set FullUserList to {}
set ListOfUnnamedUsers to {}
-- first user needs to be done separately as it is not preceded by RecordDelimiter
set EndOfHeader to "Standard:URL"
set LengthOfEndOfHeader to length of EndOfHeader
set EndOfHeaderOffset to the offset of EndOfHeader in (item 1 of o's my_List)
set OffsetToApply to EndOfHeaderOffset
set TextBeingChecked to text (OffsetToApply + LengthOfEndOfHeader + 1) thru -1 of (item 1 of o's my_List)
tell TextBeingChecked to set {UserName, NameForInfo} to {text item 1, text item 7}
if NameForInfo = "" then set end of ListOfUnnamedUsers to UserName & return
set end of FullUserList to (UserName & tab & NameForInfo & return)
-- now do all the others
repeat with CounterG from 2 to (NumberOfrecords - 1)
    set TextBeingChecked to item CounterG of o's my_List
    tell TextBeingChecked to set {UserName, NameForInfo} to {text item 1, text item 7}
    if NameForInfo = "" then set end of ListOfUnnamedUsers to UserName & return
    set end of FullUserList to (UserName & tab & NameForInfo & return)
end repeat
set o's my_List to {}
set text item delimiters to OldDelims
-- write results to file
-- 1). full user list
set TargetFile1 to (path to desktop folder as string) & "FullUserList1.txt"
try
    open for access file TargetFile1 with write permission
on error
    close access file TargetFile1
    open for access file TargetFile1 with write permission
end try
set EndTime to current date
beep
set InfoToBeWrittenToFile to FullUserList as text
write InfoToBeWrittenToFile to file TargetFile1
close access file TargetFile1
-- 2). list of users without NameForInfo
set TargetFile2 to (path to desktop folder as string) & "UnnamedUsersList1.txt"
try
    open for access file TargetFile2 with write permission
on error
    close access file TargetFile2
    open for access file TargetFile2 with write permission
end try
set InfoToBeWrittenToFile to ListOfUnnamedUsers as text
write InfoToBeWrittenToFile to file TargetFile2
close access file TargetFile2
beep 3
set TimeTaken to EndTime - StartTime
set TimePerAccount to TimeTaken / NumberOfrecords
display dialog (NumberOfrecords & " accounts took " & TimeTaken & " seconds." & return & return & "That equals " & TimePerAccount & " seconds per account.") as string

Speed disappointment

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for