Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

I have a two year old Macbook; 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM with about 30GB left of memory. I also just purchased, from apple, a 27" Imac; 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 with 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. and have just under 850GB left. The Macbook is running on 10.5.8 and the Imac is on 10.6.3.
My issue is that when i download/stream video to my Imac it takes a substantial amount of time. I love to watch movies, tv shows, ect, on my Imac. I was disappointed by how slow the downloads would take. So I set up my macbook right in front of the Imac to compare the speeds. I went to the Movie Trailers section on apple.com and I clicked on The Last Airbender 1080p (149MB) at the same time for both computers (on WiFi of the same network). My macbook finished the download 5 minutes faster than the Imac. I then tried the 42MB version with a minute difference with the Macbook. I then went to youtube and it was almost the same speed. I tried Itunes and it was about the same speed as well. I then did an internet speed test with both and got these results:
Macbook: Download 18.45Mb/s, Upload 2.28Mb/s, Ping 93
IMac: Download 20.88Mb/s, Upload 2.3Mb/s, Ping 89
I don't know if any of this information helps or if anyone will even read this far but the apple store is extremely far from my house and would try almost anything to fix this issue. My questions are:
1) Is this a known issue that has a fix, if so how do i fix it?
2) Is this possibly a faulty computer that i would have to return?
3) Is this the way it's supposed to operate and if I don't like it take it back
Thanks in advance for anyone who even reads this post.

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Similar Messages

Why can't I download more than 50mb in iPhone ??

Why can't I download more than 50mb in iPhone ??

Deggie is correct. The carriers originally wanted it so people wouldnt be downloading large files on their networks and causing congestion. Also look at is from a carrier perspective for protecting costumers. People could also complain if they went over their data plan that they should have received a warning about downloading large files. Rather than argue about updating/downloading apps, they have the warning now.
I am hoping down the road that carriers converse with Apple to lift those, we will see what happens. Rodgers has more influence on lifting that limit that normal costumers would.

I have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

i have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

It is the OS. have you ever heard of UNIX? If you installed linux on your mac it work run just at fast... windows is very resource intensive. Also apple make sure the drivers are correct and run properly while windows could care less. Someone else can give you more reasons.

Downloading faster than restoring :S

Hi there again,
I just figured out that I'm actually downloading faster than restoring up :s
Picture this:
I have a internet connection of 20mbit, my average download speed is around 19mbps I can download around 6/7Gb a hour.
At the moment I'm restoring a map with high-res RAW images (16MB each). the map is 5,5Gb large and the estimating time is 4 hours.. This means that the restore speed is around 13mbit / h. How is this possible?
And the fun part: I can download while I'm restoring and it doesn't effect my download/restore speed???? Connected with a wire to timecapsule 500gb.
Hope someone can clear me out.. I can't figure it out...
Message was edited by: rover87 - spelling

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

We just purchased a brand new system to replace a system that has been in production for over 5 years and I am finding very disappointing performance results.
The old system is a SunBlade 2000( 2x 900 MHz, 4 GB RAM, Solaris 9) with a Sun T3 fiber array (9 x 36 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare).
The new system is a Sun T2000 ( 8-Core 1.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Solaris 10) with a Sun 3320 SCSI array (12 x 300 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare) + Ultra 320 SCSI card.
I first moved over our applications and ran a few tests and found that jobs were taking about 50% longer to complete. So I decided to take the application out of the equation and just run some basic test to compare the 2 systems.
Using some basic dd tests, I could push about 90 MB/s through the T3 and only about 40 MB/s through the 3320. I also tried running IOZone and it showed the same results. The T3 was 40%-50% faster on all reads, writes and combination operations. I tried all sorts of configurations with the 3320 including single bus and split bus as well as different RAID levels. Nothing seems to help the 3320.
I've opened a support case with Sun but they are bouncing me around support from group to group, from hardware to storage to kernel and back again. My VAR is doesn�t seem too interested in helping either. I'm still hoping for the best because my upper management is not happy that we spent over $65K for new equipment and our applications are going to be slower.
Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

Not sure if any of this will help. but it doesn't hurt to cover the basics. You might want to start by double checking the SCSI negotiation between the server and the array. Below is an example from our 3310 that we've deliberately misconfigured.
sccli> show channels
Ch Type Media Speed Width PID / SID
0 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*1 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow 1 / N/A*
2 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*3 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow N/A / 1*
6 Drive FC(L) 1G Narrow N/A / N/A
7 Host LAN N/A Serial N/A / N/A
sccli>
What we have here are host channels that have not negotiated UP to desired parameters. Please keep in mind that we've set this up purposely in our lab for training. As you can see the host connections never go into synchronous transfer and they also never negotiate to a wide bus width. This effectively throttles down the connection between the server and array. There are several causes for these types of symptoms.
- Faulty or incorrect termination.
- Mismatched hardware.
- Faulty cable
- HBA drivers
- Incorrect SCSI settings.
Since you mentioned that you have Ultra 320 HBAs and the array is capable of negotiating up to these speeds, I'd suggest you check the negotiated link speed between your array and server. If you find that the SCSI channel is not negotiating up to the desired value, one place you can check would be the "SCSI Options" in the /etc/system file.
Below is a bit mask for the various setting options
* SCSI subsystem options
* Following are applicable to all interconnects
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_LINK 0x10 /* Global linked commands */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_TAG 0x80 /* Global tagged command support */
* Following are for parallel SCSI only
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_DR 0x8 /* Global disconnect/reconnect */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_SYNC 0x20 /* Global synchronous xfer capability */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_PARITY 0x40 /* Global parity support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST 0x100 /* Global FAST scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_WIDE 0x200 /* Global WIDE scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST20 0x400 /* Global FAST20 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST40 0x800 /* Global FAST40 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST80 0x1000 /* Global FAST80 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST160 0x2000 /* Global FAST160 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST320 0x4000 /* Global FAST320 scsi support */
Most systems have a setting of 7f8 which would only bring you to Ultra Fast Wide at 40MB per sec. Factor in the wide bus and your effective through put would be 80MB. If you find that the SCSI Options on your system are not set to support the Ultra 320 HBAs, you may want to bump up the settings here.
On the array side, you could also check to see if write cache is turned on and working.
sccli> show cache-parameters
mode: write-back
optimization: sequential
sync-period: disabled
current-global-write-policy: write-through
sccli>
In this array, the global cache setting is correctly set for write-back, but because of a fault in the array, the cache policy has defaulted to write-through. This is most common in single controller arrays (which this is). The array requires two operational controllers for write cache to be in effect.
Hopefully there is something here that you can use....

How much fast are the new iMac's?

I've been looking at upgrading my G5 PowerMac for a while and now Apple has just updated the iMac. How much faster are the new models over the just superseded ones and my G5 (spec below).
I mainly us it for my work with Photoshop CS2 and the G5 does a great job most of the time but is showing it's age. I was looking at the 2nd model but for not much more you can get the 27inch screen with better upgrade options.

Hi Craig,
even the very first 2006 released Intel iMacs were faster than the G5 iMacs including yours.
See this Barefeats test http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html
Check additional tests on Barefeats on older iMacs against newer ones http://www.barefeats.com/
The new 2010 iMacs of any sort run circles around the 2006 iMacs, so you are in for a very pleasant surprise
Regards
Stefan

I was directed to adobe to download CS4 on my new iMAC after hardware failure on PC. The valid CS4 serial number for the PC is not recognized by Adobe, even though I downloaded all the software successfully. They gave me a free 30 day trial.........Does

I was directed to adobe to download CS4 on my new iMAC after hardware failure on PC. The valid CS4 serial number for the PC is now not recognized by Adobe, even though I downloaded all the software successfully on the new iMac.. They gave me a free 30 day trial on the new iMAC.........Does this mean I have to spend a lot of money to update and activate the latest CS release on the new machine ??????

Purple Lobster your Creative Suite 4 serial number is for Windows or Mac only. If you were previously using it on Windows then it is likely you have a Windows license. You can verify by checking your serial number at http://www.adobe.com/. You can find more details at Find your serial number quickly - http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/find-serial-number.html.
If you wish to run Adobe Creative software on your new iMac then I would recommend a Creative Cloud complete or single application membership. You can find more details at https://creative.adobe.com/plans. There is also a 30 day trial available for the Creative Cloud if you wish to evaluate the newest versions of the Adobe Creative applications.

I own Adobe Photoshop 11 disc, need to download it on my new IMAC-

I own Adobe Photoshop Elements 11. How can I download it to my new IMAC?

Downloadable installation files available:
Suites and Programs: CC 2014 | CC | CS6 | CS5.5 | CS5 | CS4, CS4 Web Standard | CS3
Acrobat: XI, X | 9,8 | 9 standard
Premiere Elements: 13 | 12 | 11, 10 | 9, 8, 7 win | 8 mac | 7 mac
Photoshop Elements: 13 |12 | 11, 10 | 9,8,7 win | 8 mac | 7 mac
Lightroom: 5.7.1| 5 | 4 | 3
Captivate: 8 | 7 | 6 | 5.5, 5 | 1
Contribute: CS5 | CS4, CS3 | 3,2
FrameMaker: 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7.2
Download and installation help for Adobe links
Download and installation help for Prodesigntools links are listed on most linked pages. They are critical; especially steps 1, 2 and 3. If you click a link that does not have those steps listed, open a second window using the Lightroom 3 link to see those 'Important Instructions'.

Why do i not have pages on my new imac?

Why do i not have "pages" on my new imac?

http://www.apple.com/creativity-apps/mac/up-to-date/

Trying to download Lightroom onto a new iMAC and my serial code isn't working - how do I fix this?

Trying to download Lightroom onto a new iMAC and my serial code isn't working - how do I fix this?

What does "isn't working" actually mean? Any error message?

Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

I noticed that slideshow exports in AP3 seemed to take a long time and did a test with iMoive 09. I exported the exact same slideshow of 60 pictures and 1 song from both iMoive and AP3. The iMovie export was 5 times faster than the AP3 export.
Why is this and can anything be done to speedup AP3 slideshow exports?
I have a fairly quick Mac, 2 x 2.26 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 16 meg of ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870.
Any thoughts?
Ken

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Macbook is faster than my Macbook Pro?

I did a quick test running the Universal Binary of Firefox and surfing a few sites.
Why is my Macbook faster than my MBP? Both have the same 2 GHz core clock.

It could be the power management system. I don't know the numbers but if you download CoreDuoTemp. you will see when you are just woing a little web surfing the mhz are not always at 2.0ghz. Do a test see what the mhz are doing the same task on both.

Do JavaFX applets tend to download faster than Swing applets?

Historically, the biggest concern with Java applets is that they take too long to download.
Is it true that JavaFX applets will download faster?
In particular, by using CSS properties instead of all the Swing method calls, will JavaFX applets tend to be smaller and download faster (since the browser, not the bytecode, will do the work of translating the CSS code to graphics commands that the operating system can understand)?
Thanks,
John

I do not think size is the main issue for startup.
It is only applicable to cold start (i.e. first launch) as on subsequent launches jars will be coming from cache.
And it does not impact much "perceived" startup as typically application can appear to be "live" earlier than it is fully loaded
(e.g. using preloaders).
For the warm start scenario it is still the same plugin but
a) JavaFX applications are by default deployed in a way to minimize number of network connections
b) JavaFX toolkit is initialized instead of AWT/Swing
This gives JavaFX fundamental benefit over "Swing applet" scenario but ...
a) it does not magically make it instant as jvm still need to be started, etc.
(if your application is slow to start as standalone it will not be starting instantly in the browser)
b) JavaFX runtime and Java deployment code may have bugs that lead to suboptimal performance
Best is to give it its own try and see if it is fast enough for you.

Why would oracle 9i drivers faster than oracle 10g drivers against a 10g?

I'm skeptical of the claim but we have a system at work and tests have been done that apparently is showing that the older oracle 9i thin jdbc driver is performing a fetch faster than the 10g driver. This for a query that is currently doing a full table scan.
Is there a default setting in 10g vs 9i that can explain why the perceived query performance is faster with the older thin driver?

steffi2 wrote:
What was observed was that when they started using the old Oracle 8.1.7 8i client jar against this 10g data the actual execution plan changed dramatically to use indexes where was previously it was not doing so and it was doing a full tablescan.
Why would the introduction of the old 8i jar have this affect?Maybe the test is flawed. For example one test was run with the network was loaded while the other wasn't. Or different connection parameters.
That said I believe somewhere the claim has been made that Oracle drivers changed from one API to another somewhat recently. Thus that could be the source.
Or maybe something to do with hints.

2011 MBP - why is the optical port faster than the hard drive port?

In looking at an earlier discussion (April I think) I found a screen grab that showed a 15" MBP with a 6.0Gbp/s hard drive connection and a 3.0Gbp/s optical bay connection. That is image number one below.
Images two and three are from my brand new MBP 17". Can someone please explain the Link Speed and Negotiated Link Speed differnces? What is the 1.5 Gbp/s about?
I would appreciate any input guys.
Thanks!
Hugh

Why did Apple change this?
9-pin FireWire ports use FireWire 800, which is faster than the old 6-pin FireWire 400 ports.
Is there an adapter I can buy so that I can backup my Macbook?
Yes.
(48784)

Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for