Who do I blame for poor DL performance?

FF 3.6.3 Over the last few months I (and my wife ) have had slow down and others problems with Internet connection. Most common are "server not found" or "unable to connect" messages but if I hit the Try Again button 1, 2, 3, 4 or ... times the web site appears. I can tell when I have succeeded when the message in the tab changes from "problem loading page" to the title of the web site. After that loading can be very fast but lately pretty slow. The green progress bar seems to go to 3/4 immediately and then crawls minutely. The most annoying new occurrence is that sometimes when the site loads there are no graphics! My wife uses IE (on a different computer) and has experienced similar messages and performance so I don't think FF is to blame. Download speed (speakeasy) is reported at 6-7mb. So who do I blame; modem, router, maybe excessive noise on the line, the Comcast servers or some other factor? Thanks for any input.
== Operating system ==
XP

You would be better off using one of the fan control utilities, SMCFanControl or FanControl - VersionTracker or MacUpdate - than that old method.
You might open Activity Monitor and check for any process that's using an inordinate amount of processing time.
Normal operating temperatures range from 45ºC-85ºC depending upon CPU load and ambient room temperature. Somewhat higher idle temperatures may occur for the faster CPUs. The fans idle at 2,000 RPM and max out at 6,000 RPM depending upon how hot the computer gets.

Similar Messages

Probable reasons for poor youtube performance with Chrome browser

Using my new Lenovo Yoga 3 11 inch I have been experiencing horrendeously choppy youtube performance using the chrome browser, which was generating lots of heat due to the demands that chrome was asking of the CPU. The same youtube video plays perfectly smooth using Internet Explorer, and the laptop remains cool thanks to the much lower CPU load. So I was wondering why this was so. I wasted a lot of time following the stock answers of the internet - disabling plugins, 32 bit vs 64 bit chrome, updating drivers, even factory resetting and updating! But after routing through the internet guff, I did find some excellent information that fits my experiences, so I have little reason to doubt that the following statements, extracted from various parts of the internet, are true: Quote: "Google decided that Chrome should always use VP9 codec on PCs – even if there is no hardware acceleration available. This means that Chrome is doing CPU decide and that is pretty demanding in a 3.5w power limit for CPU, GPU, LLC, and FIVR. On IE, YouTube uses H.264/AVC and the hardware codec support kicks in for much more power efficiency." Quote: "When you watch YouTube using Chrome it uses VP8/VP9encoding by default. This type of encoding does not support hardware acceleration (which means it won’t use the on-board GPU – or video chip for you non-techies) so, your CPU has to do all of the work to decode and display the video." I thought people may find this information interesting, expecially if you are using a laptop with a light CPU such as Intel Core M. Chrome is my browser of choice, but this situation has forced me to use Internet Explorer for youtube.

I found that Chrome youtube runs much smoother and cooler on my Lenovo Yoga 3 11 inch after installing the h264ify Chrome extension. This allows Chrome to use the h264 codec for youtube instead of the CPU hammering VP9 codec.

Poor Bluetooth performance with all aluminum Mac Pro

The all aluminum case for pre-mavericks Mac Pro is the primary reason for poor antenna performance of Bluetooth. Aluminum, being a good conductor, acts as a reflector of EMF forming what is known as a Faraday Cage, essentially trapping emissions within the box. Normally, holes drilled in the case would allow enough EMF to pass through the case but the hole size for transmission is directly proportional to the lowest frequency that will pass through easily. An example is the typical microwave oven where the window is actually a conducting sheet with small enough hole such that higher freq light waves pass easily through the sheet but lower frequency microwaves do not. Perhaps if the drive bay covers were made of plastic, transmission of the Bluetooth and wifi would be sufficient. One might carefully nibble a slot or two in the side door but this would surely invalidate any warranty and care would have to be taken not to get aluminum particles inside the computer. This would probably nullify any FCC approval of the machine due to clocking noise interference with other devices. The best approach would probably be a tuned waveguide that passes frequencies only around 2.4 GHz ~ 5 GHz through the case (very similar to the way tuned ports on audio speakers pass a band of frequencies needed to extend bass response). I'm sure Apple will have corrected this design flaw in the new Mac Pro introduced this year. If you have lots of time on your hands you can get a college level text on electromagnetics (Maxwell's Equations, etc.) and derive all the details but with a bit of experimenting and reading about tin can antenna mods to wireless routers you should be able to improve Bluetooth performance significantly.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to move my wireless home base station. It is on the same desk as my mini so much less than 5 feet away.

Difference in voltage between Europe-U.S. to blame for battery performance?

I recently bought (September 2010) a MacBook Pro 15" 2.4GHz Intel Core i5 4GB from the U.S. While using it there the battery lasted approximately 8-9 hours. Coming back to Europe (Greece) and charging it here, I noticed that the battery won't last more than 3 hours in every full charge. Can we blame the difference in voltage between the U.S. and Europe for this problem? I still use it in Europe with the Power adapter that I bought in the U.S.

The MagSafe Adapter is rated 110-240 volts and provides everything the battery needs in the USA, Europe and elsewhere, this is not the reason for your battery performance variation but something else that's happening now that wasn't then. Check for any background processes with Activity Monitor to see what's running that could cause extra drain.

Same problem that everybody has after up dating my apple tv. Apple is to blame for this and should solve problem or replace unit.

same problem as everybody after having updated my apple tv. apple is to blame for this and should solve problem oe replace unit. lost confident with apple products.

What problem would that be? There are always going to be people who experience problems after an update and this is a community for helping with such things.
If you can elaborate on the issue it will make it easier for someone to help.

Should I Optimize for "Memory" or "Performance" in Preferences?

I've been rendering the timeline prior to export and finding that it renders in just over an hour for a 30 minute project. Then, almost miraculously, the MPEG2-DVD export only takes about two hours or so. This is with "Maximum Render Quality" selected in the Sequence Settings. When this option is selected, a pop-up warns that it is "highly recommended" to set "Optimize for Memory" in Preferences>General. I did this, and my timeline render increased exponentially (I estimate triple, since I stopped it after it ran for 1/2 an hour and it said there was still about two hours to go. So I am prefering the "Performance" setting for rendering the timeline.
But export may be a different matter. I'd rather not experiment with this if I don't have to, so I'm asking if anyone knows if the Preferences>General should be set to "Optimize for Memory" for export since that may be different than rendering the timeline for some important reasons.
This question is really about time and quality in the final MPEG2-DVD. Are either affected, one way or the other, by the various options for settings in both the timeline render and the export encode? In the past, I've always used Max Render Quality with Optimize set for Performance and never had any issues. This latest discovery of reducing my export time (maybe in the range of 80%+) by rendering the timeline first is tempting to continue since the final MPEG2-DVD quality appears identical to exporting without first rendering the timeline. I did do a test today exporting without rendering the timeline first (after deleting all the preview files) and that export took 4-1/4 hours, a net loss of about an hour.
Thanks, everyone.
Update on statement in paragraph one. Since writing this, I exported after deleting the preview files and using Optimize for Memory in Preferences>General. Total export time was 4:15.

When it comes to exporting, what type of encoding you use greatly effects how much time it takes to render the file. For example i recently tried to export a 12 minute file. It takes me about 45 minutes in an AVI format but it takes over 8 hours in FLV format. (FLV is a poor example but none the less point can be made from this).
When it comes to optimizing for memory vs performance....It all depends on what you have available on your computer. If your memory is un the range of say 2-4 GB and you're using a windows 7 or vista OS, it's probably in your best interest to optimize for memory. This allows a machine with less memory to render much smoother than it would if it were trying to render based off of a performance based setting.
Sometimes what happens as a result of the performance setting is the program tries to render the video much quicker than what the memory your computer can allocate can tolerate. Try it out, it might help with some of the "skipping over frame" errors.
Cheers,
-MBTV

HT201328 Why do Orange and EE blame Apple for the delays in unlocking my iPhone. 10 months now. What is the exact process that these companies have to go through to unlock an iPhone and is Apple in any way to blame for the delays. Indeed how long does Ap

Why do Orange and EE blame Apple for the delays in unlocking my iPhone. 10 months now. What is the exact process that these companies have to go through to unlock an iPhone and is Apple in any way to blame for the delays.
Indeed how long does Apple take to carry out its part of the process.
It seems to me that Orange are just trying to stall me despite the fact that I am out of contract with them now. I originally paid to have the phone unlocked back last November. This was never done.
I have phoned them numerous times over the last two months but still they haven't done it. Can anyone advise me and has anyone had similar problems with them.
Thanks

I certainly understand that only Orange can unlock my phone. My annoyance is that they blame Apple so I am keen to know what exactly is Apple's involvement.
I presume that Orange have to tell Apple that the phone has been authorised for unlocking by Orange and that Apple then notes that in some way on iTunes so that the user can then complete the process on iTunes.
What I would like to know is how much time Apples part in this process takes.
I would also like to make contact with others who have had similar problems.
Many thanks

Poor 3G performance from Hutchinson 3 Service Provide at HK

any Hong Kong 3G iphone users experiencing poor 3G performance on Hutchinson 3 network? test my 3G iphone against original EDGE iphone at same spot on office floor, browsing to www.yahoo.com and the performance was marginally quicker than EDGE. after calling our service provide, being told that we were capped on network bandwidth of 7.2mbps but the real speed testing was around 0.3mbps.... this is unacceptable performance.
Apple - please speak to vendor, this is making your product look BAD.

Hi Welcome to the community forums
Here is a basic guide to getting help from the community members done by CL Keith Please read through the link posted http://forumhelp.dyndns.info/speed/first_steps.html
once you have posted the information asked for then the community members can help you more
Thank You
This is a customer to customer self help forum the only BT presence here are the forum moderators
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’

IPhone 4S Poor Battery Performance SOLVED!!

iPhone 4S Poor Battery Performance SOLVED!!
I found the issue with the iPhone 4S battery performance.
I bought 2 iPhone 4S models on the first day. One for my wife and one for me. The strange thing was that mine would kill the battery in 4-6 hours and ran VERY WARM to the touch. My wife's phone worked great. It was cold to the touch. She would forget to charge it at night... and the battery performance was great... even better than our prior 3GS models.
What was the difference? I have my phone connected to Exchange for my corporate email. But exchange is not exactly the problem. The issue is in Notification Center. For some reason, I had hundreds of calendar reminders that kept refreshing on notification center. Furthermore, the reminders would flicker between the time remaining and the start time for the event at such a fast rate that it could not be read... (clearly a bug)
What is the solution? Go to Settings>Notifications>Calendar and disable Notification Center. You can still have the "alert style" set to Banners, or Alerts and you will still receive notices about your events, but it will not BUILD a summary in the Notification Center drop down screen. This is where the BUG exists. [Oddly, this does not affect my iPad 2, but is an issue for iOS 5 on the iPhone (different builds, maybe?)]
So, it appears that Notification Center has an endless loop in collecting the calendar events from Exchange and this is burning up our 4S batteries. Once you stop the madness from Notification Center, your iPhone 4S will perform as advertised.
Enjoy!
Tim

TimothyW wrote:
iPhone 4S Poor Battery Performance SOLVED!!
I found the issue with the iPhone 4S battery performance.
I bought 2 iPhone 4S models on the first day. One for my wife and one for me. The strange thing was that mine would kill the battery in 4-6 hours and ran VERY WARM to the touch. My wife's phone worked great. It was cold to the touch. She would forget to charge it at night... and the battery performance was great... even better than our prior 3GS models.
What was the difference? I have my phone connected to Exchange for my corporate email. But exchange is not exactly the problem. The issue is in Notification Center. For some reason, I had hundreds of calendar reminders that kept refreshing on notification center. Furthermore, the reminders would flicker between the time remaining and the start time for the event at such a fast rate that it could not be read... (clearly a bug)
What is the solution? Go to Settings>Notifications>Calendar and disable Notification Center. You can still have the "alert style" set to Banners, or Alerts and you will still receive notices about your events, but it will not BUILD a summary in the Notification Center drop down screen. This is where the BUG exists. [Oddly, this does not affect my iPad 2, but is an issue for iOS 5 on the iPhone (different builds, maybe?)]
So, it appears that Notification Center has an endless loop in collecting the calendar events from Exchange and this is burning up our 4S batteries. Once you stop the madness from Notification Center, your iPhone 4S will perform as advertised.
Enjoy!
Tim
Check this out. They are stumpped:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/28/iphone-4s-battery-apple-enginee rs

Filing a complaint for poor customer service

Can anyone tell me how I go about filing a complaint for poor customer service? Funny when you speak to Verizon representatives they always want to know how the service was until you get someone on the phone who knows they done nothing to help. Than they don't ask, don't care, won't put you through to someone else, won't call back, and leave you w/no answers.

Just hop on over to Google and try and find the names of some key players at VZW and search for their contact info. It took me every bit of a minute to google and find the website people. It has the name of some key folks and contact info...send them an email and voice your concerns. Will it help...who knows...but at least you'll feel better knowing you tried... Good luck with whatever issue you're having with VZW...
Executive Biographies - Verizon

Satellite Pro S500-11C - poor audio performance

Hi Folks,
I have a Satellite Pro S500-11C which suffers from the poor audio performance mentioned in reviews of the S500-11C (yeah I should have *+listened+* to the reviews and excuse the pun).
This is making it very difficult to use this laptop for audio applications such as music, VOIP and Skype without having to carry about a heaeset of some type.
Has anyone else eperianced this problem and had a solution. Any help from Toshiba??
Best Regards,
Andrew

Sorry but what kind of problem do you mean exactly? Is the sound not loud enough or what?
I mean this notebook has standard stereo speakers and not high end harman/kardon speakers inside.
I have Satellite L300 in front of me with same stereo speakers. Sound is OK but not so good as on other laptops with h/K speakers.
By the way: what kind of help do you expect? Some new driver that makes speakers louder maybe?

BI Statistics Highly Aggregated cube 0TCT_CA1 poor load performance

BI Statistics Highly Aggregated cube 0TCT_CA1 load ffrom DataSource 0TCT_DSA1 has very poor load performance.
In our DEV BW, it ran 8 min for 12,000 records. We have even worse performance in test box.
Initial loads then run very long since DataSource 0TCT_DSA1 does not allow us to load by calendar month.
If you have seen this issue, please let me know.
Jay Roble
General Mills

Compressing the cube would not help, since the cube is empty & we are trying to load 90 days of history.
The source table has an index on the timestamp field that the extractor uses in it's delta loads.
The loads run very slow, even with index dropped & no PSA.
We know that in production there will be appx rows 400,000 loaded 14,400 added with daily delta loads due to aggregation.
So we are seeing slow delta loads in our QA testing.
Not sure why the extractor can't just deliver the 14K aggregated rows vs. 400K.
Note: DS 0TCT_DSA1 has no selction criteria when doing initial full loads.

Very poor network performance with a G4

I have a white & grey G4 (1.25GHz and 256MB) running OS X 10.4.5. It's exhibiting very poor network performance, e.g. it will not FTP files over a LAN at more than about 40KB/second.
Other nodes on the same switch perform fine, as do other ports on the switch. The machine is set to autodetect for speed & duplex, so my question is -- how do I debug this? I've tried swapping network cables already...
Thanks!
Chris

This came down to an incompatibility between the G4 and the Cisco. When the switch is set to force 100Mbit but negotiate duplex, the G4 doesn't like it. Going back to auto speed & duplex fixed the problem...

Poor graphics performance.

Hi.
Include your product name and specs such as processor speed, memory, and storage capacity. Please do not include your Serial Number, IMEI, MEID, or other personal information.
Macbook Pro retina (early 2013)
2.7 GHz Intel Core I7
16GB 1600 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB
512 GB SSD
Provide the version numbers of your operating system and relevant applications, for example "iOS 6.0.3" or "iPhoto 9.1.2".
OS X 10.9.3 (13D65)
Describe the problem, and include any details about what seems to cause it.
My rMBP has poor graphical performance compared to other rMBP. I think there might be something wrong inside it. Appstore or Steam games for Mac (Bioshock Inf and Max Payne 3) at lowest graphical settings will give me between 5-10FPS. I think this might be weird for such a well specced computer.
List any troubleshooting steps you've already tried, or temporary fixes you've discovered.
Formatting, bootcamp with Win7, Updating to mavericks, stopping apps, Reset SMC.
Nothing has worked yet. I don't play games often, but since i first started trying a few times last year, i've noticed that it's almost impossible,

You should be getting more FPS. Do you have switched graphic card option on or off in the energy saving section?

Compaq 8510w, poor SSD performance

Something seems to be limiting my read performance with a SSD installed. Running Windows 7 (64-bit), with the latest BIOS, Intel Driver INF and SSD Toolbox (for TRIM). Drive is Intel X25-M G2 80GB, spec-ed at ~250MB/s for sequential writes. Benchmarks tested include HD Tune, HD Tach, ATTO, Datamarck and DiskMark. All show around 55MB/s sequential read with W7 resource monitor confirming that throughput.
I have found articles online describing "poor SSD" performance due to either running SATA-I vs. SATA-II or AHCI vs. IDE. The drive is running IDE (UDMA-5) and SATA-II. What is described as poor performance is 225MB/s for IDE vs. UHCI and 175MB/s for SATA-I vs. SATA-II. No where near the performance I see.
I have also run across posts mentioning that the 8510w utilizes a bridge for IDE to SATA. If this is the case, the bridge could be the culprit. Any insight would be appreciated.

Hi doasc,
I just re-imaged my 8510w to Windows 7 onto a Kingston SSDNow V Series 128 GB drive.
I was quite silly and did not run HD Tune before enabling the employer mandated McAfee Endpoint Encryption whole disk encryption.
I get 60MB/sec in HD Tune with the disk encrypted - and you are likely quite correct about getting better results without disk encryption enabled and I wish I had tested it that way first.
/dan

Who do I blame for poor DL performance?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for