Why is new Westell 6100G slower than old 327W?

I just upgraded from the 3Mb/s DSL service I've had for about 8 years to the 4-7 Mb/s service. Verizon sent me a new 6100G DSL modem/router. I eventually got it to work in bridge mode (what a headache) with my Linksys router running DD-WRT. I get speeds of about 5200/700.
I was curious to see if my old 327W modem would work with the new service in case I ever need a backup modem. To my surprise, not only does it work fine, it gets significantly faster download speeds! About 5900 Mb/s. I've run tests multiple times and switched between the two routers a couple of times, so it's not just a fluke or a bad DSL sync.
Any ideas why this much older modem would be working so much faster??
I guess I'll keep using the really old one as my primary. It's got cooler blinking LEDs, anyway....

Sunfish, I can only comment on my experience...which is, I get about a 12% speed increase with the 327W versus the 6100G. YMMV. The 327W is also a Westell, it's about 8-10 years old...I'm not endorsing it, but in my case it's faster than the brand-new 6100G, and because it's so old, I'm sure you can pick a used one up really cheap to try. Sometimes newer models are lower quality.
If you can spend a little more $, then I'd probably get a newer model DSL modem. You can check Newegg, Amazon, etc. for ratings and reviews.
It's pretty much impossible to predict which modem might work the best for your connection. There are lots of variables. Yes, Verizon determines the upper limit of your bandwidth; but some modems may communicate better with the modem on the Verizon end (the DSLAM) or may be able to "squeeze" some more bandwidth out of your phone line, despite a low signal to noise ratio or other challenges.
I think it's a safe bet to say that the standard modems Verizon ships out to millions of customers aren't the highest-quality units available!

Similar Messages

New hard drive slower than old one

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

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

New E1000 is slower than old router

I hooked up a new E1000 yesterday. I've got a desktop pc connected to it through a wire - the desktop pc is not wireless (so there's no interference or confusion). I changed the password and I live in a rural area - no neighbors are using my wifi network - only one desktop pc connected by wire (so far). Page loads are noticeably slower. Just going to Google homepage clocks for a few seconds. Is there a security setting on the E1000 that may not have been on my old (US Robotics) router that could cause it to be slower? Any other ideas?

Follow the below mentioned settings and check if that helps you.
Open an Internet Explorer browser page on your wired computer(desktop).In the address bar type - 192.168.1.1 and press Enter.Leave Username blank & in Password use admin in lower case.
For Wireless Settings, please do the following -Click on the Wireless tab
Here select manual configuration...Wireless Network mode should be mixed...
Provide a unique name in the Wireless Network Name (SSID) box in order to differentiate your network from your neighbors network.
Set the Radio Band to Standard-20MHz and change the Standard channel to 11-2.462GHz...Wireless SSID broadcast should be Enabled and then click on Save Settings.
For Wireless Security - Click on the Sub tab under Wireless > Wireless Security.
Change the Wireless security mode to WPA, For Encryption, select TKIP...For Passphrase input your desired WPA Key. For example , MySecretKey , This will serve as your network key whenever you connect to your wireless network. Do NOT give this key to anyone and remember the key.
NOTE : Passphrase should be equal to or more that 8 characters.
Click on Advanced Wireless Settings
Change the Beacon Interval to 75,Change the Fragmentation Threshold to 2304,Change the RTS Threshold to 2304 and Click on Save Settings...

New Triggers way slower than old Triggers - Some Statspack Findings

To get round a trigger problem the developers altered existing queries to use Global Temporary Tables. It's in an EDW and throughput with the new triggers is horrible.
Some Statspack Figures Old v New
Redo size 764,003.22 v 78,272.52
Logical reads 120,022.01 v 321,208.61
Block Changes 3,676.2 v 303.32
Executes 2000 v 28 and Transactions 334 v 27
Parse CPU to Parse Elapsd % 75% to 113%
In Top 5 wait events we have PL/SQL lock timer of 11% v 16%
Sequential Read is 20 times greater on old, and scattered read is half of old
table scans (short tables) is 10 times better in old and write clones created in foreground is 54 v 0
So to me the change in code has hosed the throughput, I'm just not sure how to get my point across using these figures.
Any help welcome.

BEGIN
OPEN c_user_name;
FETCH c_user_name INTO l_user_name;
CLOSE c_user_name;
IF l_user_name LIKE 'SPLEX%' THEN
l_user:=-9;
END IF;
IF l_pitcol = 'HEARTBEAT' THEN
OPEN c_hb;
FETCH c_hb INTO l_pit_ts;
CLOSE c_hb;
ELSE
l_pit_ts := :NEW.HIST_TIMESTAMP;
END IF;
IF INSERTING THEN
-- standard app audit columns
:NEW.ov_updated_id := l_user;
:NEW.ov_updated_date := l_timestamp;
IF :NEW.ov_row_status IS NULL THEN
:NEW.ov_row_status := 'I';
END IF;
-- OV_ID sequence
IF :NEW.ov_id IS NULL THEN
OPEN c_ov;
FETCH c_ov INTO l_ov_id;
CLOSE c_ov;
:NEW.ov_id := l_ov_id;
END IF;
IF :NEW.pit_stop IS NULL THEN
:NEW.pit_stop := to_date('47121230', 'YYYYMMDD');
END IF;
IF :NEW.pit_stop = to_date('47121230', 'YYYYMMDD') THEN
:NEW.ov_creation_id := l_user;
:NEW.ov_creation_date := l_timestamp;
:NEW.ov_number := 1;
ELSE
:NEW.ov_number := :NEW.ov_number+1;
END IF;
IF :NEW.pit_start IS NULL THEN
:NEW.pit_start := l_pit_ts;
:NEW.pit_start_yq := to_number(to_char(l_pit_ts,'YYYYQ'));
END IF;
--Insert audit rec.
IF l_user_name LIKE 'SPLEX%' THEN
IF(( :NEW.ov_row_status = 'I' and :NEW.pit_stop = to_date('47121230', 'YYYYMMDD') ) OR
( :NEW.ov_row_status IN ('ID','UD'))) THEN
app.app_transaction_audits_ins(:NEW.ov_id,l_user_name,l_timestamp,:NEW.pit_start,:NEW.pit_stop,l_table,:NEW.ov_row_status);
END IF;
ELSE
:NEW.ov_creation_id := l_user;
:NEW.ov_creation_date := l_timestamp;
:NEW.ov_number := 1;
app.app_transaction_audits_ins(:NEW.ov_id,l_user_name,l_timestamp,:NEW.pit_start,:NEW.pit_stop,l_table,:NEW.ov_row_status);
END IF;
ELSIF UPDATING THEN
:NEW.ov_updated_id := l_user;
:NEW.ov_updated_date := l_timestamp;
:NEW.ov_number := :OLD.ov_number+1;
IF l_user_name LIKE 'SPLEX%' THEN
:NEW.pit_start := l_pit_ts;
:NEW.pit_start_yq := to_number(to_char(l_pit_ts,'YYYYQ'));
:NEW.ov_number := 1;
:NEW.ov_creation_id := l_user;
:NEW.ov_creation_date := l_timestamp;
OPEN c_ov;
FETCH c_ov INTO l_ov_id;
CLOSE c_ov;
:NEW.ov_id := l_ov_id;
isr_alarmlst_log_tp(:old.rowid, :OLD.ov_row_status, :NEW.pit_start - (1/24/60/60),:OLD.ov_id,:OLD.pit_start,:OLD.pit_start_yq,l_timestamp,:OLD.hist_timestamp,:OLD.hist_timestamp_dst,:OLD.hcapi_subscript);
END IF;
:NEW.ov_row_status := 'U';
app.app_transaction_audits_ins(:NEW.ov_id,l_user_name,l_timestamp,:NEW.pit_start,:NEW.pit_stop,l_table,:NEW.ov_row_status);
ELSIF DELETING THEN
IF l_user_name LIKE 'SPLEX%' THEN
OPEN c_hb;
FETCH c_hb INTO l_timestamp;
CLOSE c_hb;
isr_alarmlst_log_tp(:old.rowid, :OLD.ov_row_status||'D', l_timestamp,:OLD.ov_id,:OLD.pit_start,:OLD.pit_start_yq,l_timestamp,:OLD.hist_timestamp,:OLD.hist_timestamp_dst,:OLD.hcapi_subscript);
ELSE
app.app_transaction_audits_ins(:OLD.ov_id,l_user_name,l_timestamp,:OLD.pit_start,l_timestamp,l_table,:OLD.ov_row_status||'D');
END IF;
END IF;
END;
/

New Macbook Pro slower than old one.

I recently got a new Macbook Pro, unibody, with 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo and 4 GB Ram. I am upgrading from a Macbook Pro with the previous body design, that is 2.5 Ghz core 2 duo and came with 2GB RAM but I upgraded to 4GB myself.
I got the new MBP, migrated some applications and my settings. Now when I start Firefox I sometimes get the spinning beach ball for a few moments before my homepage loads. Also for example, if I have 2 tabs open, with one playing a youtube video in the background and I'm browsing in the other, the video will stutter and I'll get the beach ball for a few moments when I try to go to another page. This happens no matter what browser I try (Firefox, Safari, Camino). And it never happens on my older MBP, it's a little annoying that a system that is 2 years older seems to perform better.
Any ideas or tips?

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

Why the system is very slow than before

I have two computers, One is desktop, another is laptop,but I met the problems about the performance for the two
computers, from last Monday, two computers speed are very slow, after I checked the task manager, I found the service(ntoskrnl.exe) used the 60-70% CPU resource, but why the ntoskrnl.exe cause this? I also download the tools and analysised it, but it seems
that no useful information,how to find the root cause?
summary all the information as below
1.Suddenly this problems happened
2. I closed the AVP (Kaspersky antivirus software), but it seems no improved for the performance
3. I have closed the Windows search service, but no change for this
4\I use the maxthon and Firefox browse
, all the same thing happened.
you can download the Log file from http://1drv.ms/WwTBhU

Hi,
Any update in this thread?
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/ce42930b-f0f3-4df7-a621-d8f9d59109b4/why-the-system-is-very-slow-than-before?forum=w8itpronetworking
Regards
Yolanda Zhu
TechNet Community Support

Why performance of Illustrator CS6 slower than Illustrator CS5.5?

Ex: Process get text of TextFrame has 657 characters:
Dim t1 As String
Dim t2 As String
t1 = DateTime.Now.Minute & " " & DateTime.Now.Second & " " & DateTime.Now.Millisecond
Dim text As String
For iChar = 1 To iCharNum
      oChar = oContents.Characters(iChar)
      Dim str As String
      str = oChar.contents.ToString
      text = text & str
Next
t2 = DateTime.Now.Minute & " " & DateTime.Now.Second & " " & DateTime.Now.Millisecond
Result:
Time of CS5.5: 0s 487
                         t1= 38 43 71
                         t2= 38 43 558
Time of CS6: 3s 871
                         t1=42 54 738
                         t2=42 58 609
Why performance of Illustrator CS6 slower than Illustrator CS5.5?
Can i set attribute increase performance of Illustrator CS6 ?

Hi, yes
CS5 - I run it several times, consistently getting 1 second
9/23/2014 22:00:09.000
9/23/2014 22:00:10.000
CS4 - the script finished immediately, super fast, in a fraction of a second
9/23/2014 22:07:20.000
9/23/2014 22:07:20.000

New Macbook Pro Wireless is slower than Old G5 Tower

Less than 2 months out of the box, my 15 inch 2.4Ghz Intel Macbook Pro started acting up.
First, waking it from sleep mode seemed to take longer than normal (5 to 10 seconds?).
Then one day, the battery just went kaput. I did a hardware test and got a hit. Called Apple and they mailed me a new battery in less than 24 hours.
The battery works great. But the sleep thing still seems to take longer than it should.
But the real thing that worries me is how SLOW the wireless connection is... at home, as well as on other people's networks. At home I have an Airport Extreme (not the latest square-shaped model, but the one that looks like a flying saucer). And my G5 Tower dual 1.8 wireless loads pages faster than my Macbook Pro.
I'm no expert, but that's just wrong.
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance!

that's a good point too, if I'm getting you. People will be putting, quite understandably, in their G5 HDs into their MPs. Tech changes and so too the well being of HDs. It would pay in the end to do a really thorough job of making sure an HD is OK and working well.
Why is it so hard or impossible for Migration Assistant to have "smart" update and know the source is PPC and Apple Partition Table.
Because, I think, they were more concerned with the new machines than the old ones and their users. It didn't slow them down enough to consider the problems new users from G5s would go through.
Bunch of funky stuff all over the place if one looks hard enough, or encounters an extended "bad" day on their Macs. Shows me the tech is still so new and evolving, it seems it will never be complete. And I still think this is only the beginning in the Computer Age. If we make it, these things are going to change the face of the planet, for the better, if we use them right.

New Mac Mini slower than my 4 years old iMac

My Intel iMac (20" display) four years old is out of order (I think the Power Supply was gone), and I bought the new entry level Mac Mini.
When I started using it I noticed that it's much slower in several tasks than my old iMac (when restarting, when opening applications, when working with an app with another appl in the background, etc. etc.). I was concerned about this, but then I asked some friends that have Mac minis and they said that it's normal.
Why? Why a computer with a new i5 Intel processor can be slower than a four years old iMac Core 2 Duo? Is it because of the slow drive (5200 rpm)? Or what is the explanation? If this is normal for the mini, I'll try to fix my old iMac as soon as possible.

Don't downgrade to Lion. For what it's worth, my experience with Lion and Mountain Lion has been almost the exact opposite than what CaptH reported: I find ML to be much faster and more reliable, both on my late-2012 Mini and my mid-2007 iMac.
Your perceived speed issues are almost certainly a result of the slower-spinning hard drive in the Mini as Shootist007 pointed out earlier. Go ahead and disable Spotlight if you want to, but once the indexing is complete (which can take a few hours – or even a few days if you have a lot of data) it shouldn't be a problem unless you are continually connecting different large external drives.
Get the latest Combo Updater and install that. If you have some minor OS issue, that should solve it. Do a normal Software Update / check the Mac App Store for updates after you install the Combo Updater. Get it here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1640
If you continue to be bugged by the slower speed, see if your local Apple Store will allow you to exchange it and a little extra money for an equivalent model with a Fusion Drive. Or go to Other World Computing and purchase their kit to add a second drive, and use it to add an SSD in the second drive bay:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/DIYIMM11D2/
http://eshop.macsales.com/search/OWC.INSTANT.481.2
Also, RAM is super-duper-uber-cheap right now. If your Mini has only the stock 4gb of RAM, you might be pleasantly surprised by the improved performance by doubling that. I have 16gb in my Mini, it cost me well less than a hundred bucks, and it makes everything better including graphics performance. But if you don't do something to work around that slow 5400rpm hard drive, it will always be the bottleneck in your system.

Airport Drives Me CRAZY! New 802.11n Network Slower Than Old 802.11g/b

I've been using Macs since 1988 and consider myself an advanced user. However, every time I setup a new Airport wireless network or re-configure an existing one, I feel like a helpless newbie trying to figure out how to open a folder on my desktop. No matter how many times I read the manual or the help files or these forums, I can never grasp what seems like it should be a simple path from A to B to C.
Anyway, here's my current situation: I've been successfully (I think) running a 6 year old AP Extreme Base Station [AE] (in my home office addition) and 2 Airport Expresses [AX] (one AX roughly 15 feet from the base station--through sheetrock, and the second AX roughly 30 feet from the first AX--through sheetrock and some wooden stairs. (so roughly 45 feet from AE to 2nd AX). It wasn't the speediest thing going but it did the trick with older Macs.
I recently bought a MacBook Pro which supports 802.11n. I most often use this laptop at the point in the house furthest away from the AE (Base Station) The AE (Base Station) is in my home office connected to my MacPro desktop (see #1 below). In addition, the family iMac is also in that room furthest from the AE. Using the new MacBook Pro with the old 802.11/g/b network turned out to be painfully slow. I was experiencing the same slow network connection my family has complained about for years with their older Macs and 802.11g/b.
I decided it was time to upgrade the whole network, if only to speed up my MacBook Pro connection. Bought new 802.11n Airport Extreme (MC340LL/A) and 2 new 802.11n Airport Expresses (MB321LL/A). Setup did not go smoothly. Again, my normally competent Mac persona was reduced to a babbling three-year-old. Had three different Apple techs on the phone trying to help me through it. Got different, contradictory instructions from the last two. Finally got all three units working, only to find that not only does my MacBook Pro seem even more sluggish than when connected to the old 802.11g/b network, but my wife tells me web pages are taking at least twice as long to load as with the old network.
As concisely as I can lay this out:
*1. Airport Extreme (Base Station)*
Connected via Ethernet from its WAN port to my Comcast cable modem. One Ethernet (LAN) port on that AE is then connected via Ethernet to my Netgear 8-port Ethernet switch. Ethernet from switch to Ethernet port 1 on my MacPro. (MacPro does NOT have an Airport card because I forgot to order one. Also I confirmed that this setup was functional by connecting to the AE wirelessly with my MacBook Pro showing the name I'd given the new network prior to adding the two AX's to the mix).
Some Airport Extreme settings of note (all accessed via "Manual Setup" button):
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.5.1
Wireless Mode: Create a wireless network
Channel: 149 (Automatic), 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 3
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over WAN: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Allow this network to be extended: Checked
Airport Tab > Guest Network:
Nothing checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect Using: Ethernet
Ethernet WAN Port: Automatic (Default)
Connection Sharing: Share a public IP address [Think this one is probably wrong]
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Internet Tab > DHCP:
Shows Beginning & Ending Address
Internet Tab > NAT:
Enable default host at: Unchecked and blank field
Enable NAT Port Mapping Protocol: Checked
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
*2. Airport Express #1: Living Room Express (Closest to AE (Base Station)*
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.4.2
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Connect using: Wireless Network
Channel: 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 1
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over the Internet using Bonjour: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Allow wireless clients: checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect using: Greyed-out, not selectable
Connection sharing: Greyed-out, not selectable
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Shows IP Address
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
*3. Airport Express #2: Dining Room Express (Furthest from AE (Base Station)*
Airport Tab > Summary
Version 7.4.2
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Connect using: Wireless Network
Channel: 1 (Automatic)
Wireless Clients: 2
Airport Tab > Base Station:
Allow Setup over the Internet using Bonjour: Unchecked
Airport Tab > Wireless:
Wireless Mode: Extend a wireless network
Allow wireless clients: checked
Airport Tab > Access Control:
MAC Address Access Control: Not Enabled
Internet Tab > Internet Connection:
Connect using: Greyed-out, not selectable
Connection sharing: Greyed-out, not selectable
Internet Tab > TCP/IP:
Configure IPv4: Using DHCP
Shows IP Address
Internet Tab > Advanced
Didn't touch anything here, so all at defaults
SETUP/GOALS:
With Airport Extreme (Base Station) as the starting point, have the two Airport Express units with the strongest, fastest signal possible, provide Internet access (and file sharing, iTunes speakers capability) to three Macs (one older iMac, one older PowerBook and my new MacBookPro). Again, I believe my new MacBook Pro is the only one with 802.11n support, so I don't expect the other Macs to take advantage of the speed boost offered by the three new 802.11n devices.
+Any and all help with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!+

{quote}With the AirPort Extreme, in the AirPort panel, Wireless tab, click on the button for "Wireless Network Options", check the box for "5 GHz Network Name", and enter a different network name. (That can be trivially different, such as the name of the main network suffixed with an underscore and the digit 5.) Once configured that way, connect your "N" gear to each network in turn to see if one is any better than the other. (If you're wondering what effect this would have, it allows segregating your "N" gear from the older gear to prevent the older gear from slowing down your network. However, distance and interference from things like walls may negate any advantage.){quote}
William: I was gone most of yesterday, but had a chance to implement your recommendations today. I added the 5 GHz network as you suggested, but in order to connect to that at all with my 802.n11 MacBokk Pro, I need to be within a few feet of the AE (base station). If I try to access that network even from the next room (well within reach of both the AE and the livingroom AX, I get one bar and "failure to connect" messages just trying to logon to that network.
However, I did some experimenting that (as of right now, anyway) resulted in much faster network access, not only from my MacBook, but also from the older iMac which is the furthest Mac from the AE. According to my wife, that iMac is "loading web pages faster than I've ever seen them!"
Here's what I did:
1. Moved all three units to places where it seemed they would have the least amount of interference with the clearest path from unit to unit, also raising the height of both AXs from about 2-3 feet from the floor to about 5-6 feet from the floor.
2. Changed one setting on the AE (base station): Wireless Tab > Wireless Network Options > Multicast Rate ---> Changed this from Low to High.
I have a feeling the location shifts made the real difference, but I will try changing the multicast rate back to "Low" just to see what happens.
Paul

My new Macbook 1,83 Ghz Slower than old Ibook 933Mhz ---!!??

I really don't get it - Am I missing something??
I'm running exactly the same applications as I used to on a G4 Ibook 933mhz, and I'm using my new Macbook the same way.
Programes are opening slower, windows are are closing slower, it takes forever to open Photoshop...and don't event hink about opening another programme at the same time...
I read previous post and checked the following:
I did a test with Xbench ( score of 112 )
I doubt that more Ram will really solve the issue I will try...
It's slow weither the Computer is Hot or Cold.
the Widgets running are : Postit - Weather - date - Calculator.
Any idea ?
I bought it last week - I might return it if this is not solved.
Thanks for any feedback..
Dave

After purchasing the blackbook, i compared its performance to a G4 1.44GHz notebook to see if there was a significant improvement. I made sure to put the stock 512MB of RAM back into it to match the ibook to keep from having an unfair advantage. the macbook right off the bat booted much faster than the ibook. file selection and application loading was a bit different, because as Mr. Tirta said, Rosetta can account for the delay in performance. But this is actually an unfair advantage on the part of the PPC unit, since all of the applications are in an optimal environment without the need of an emulation layer like the macbook. All things being equal(native apps for both units) the macbook would fly compared to the ibook. if you run the upcoming CS3, which will be a UB app, it will get a significant jump over the previous powerpc hardware. so its not your macbook thats slower than the powerbook, its your applications running in a non-compatible environment through translation.

Why is Wireless G router slower than Wireless B?

I have a wireless B router (BEFW11S4 V4) that is dropping my internet connection sometimes on a daily basis. To restore it, I have to unplug the power and plug it back in. It's a pain and interferes with my work, so I purchased a wireless G router (WRT54G2) to replace it. Setting it up was quick and painless, but slowed my internet to a crawl. I know that wireless connections are slower than wired, but a direct connection was about 10 times faster (according to several online speed tests) which I find unacceptable.
I have since removed it and gone back to the older faulty router to restore my internet connect to a speed that at least allows me to do my work. I was not unhappy with my connection speed before. I only replaced the router because it was dropping the connection, but I cannot understand why the new router was so much slower.
Any thoughts, hints, or suggestions before I return the new router to the store?
Thanks!

1) What Internet connection speed are you paying for?
2) What Internet connection speed do you get when you wire your computer directly to your modem?
3) What Internet connection speed do you get when you wire your computer to the WRT54G2?
4) What Internet connection speed do you get through a wireless connection to the WRT54G2?
5) Is your computer's wireless adapter a wireless b? g? n?
There are many causes for poor wireless connections, and many solutions:
First of all, give your network a unique SSID. Do not use "linksys". If you are using "linksys" you may be trying to connect to your neighbor's router. Also set "SSID Broadcast" to "enabled". This will help your computer find and lock on to your router's signal.
Poor wireless connections are often caused by radio interference from other 2.4 GHz devices. This includes wireless phones, wireless baby monitors, microwave ovens, wireless mice and keyboards, wireless speakers, and your neighbor's wireless network. In rare cases, Bluetooth devices can interfere. Even some 5+ GHz phones also use the 2.4 Ghz band. Unplug these devices, and see if that corrects your problem.
In your router, try a different channel. There are 11 channels in the 2.4 GHz band. Usually channel 1, 6, or 11 works best. Check out your neighbors, and see what channel they are using. Because the channels overlap one another, try to stay at least +5 or -5 channels from your strongest neighbors. For example, if you have a strong neighbor on channel 9, try any channel 1 through 4.
Also, try to locate the router about 4 to 6 feet above the floor, in an open area. Do not locate it behind your monitor or near other computer equipment or speakers. If you have external antenna, they should be vertical.
Also, in the computer, go to your wireless software, and go to "Preferred Networks" (sometimes called "Profiles" ). There are probably a few networks listed. Delete any network named "linksys". Also delete any network that you do not recognize, or that you no longer use. Delete your current network (this will remove any old settings.) Reboot computer. Return to "Preferred Networks" and re-enter your current network info (SSID, encryption (if any), and key (if any) ). Then select your current network and make it your default network, and set it to automatic login. You may need to go to "settings" to do this, or you may need to right click on your network and select "Properties" or "settings". Reboot computer. You should connect automatically (it can take up to 2 minutes). If you have trouble connecting, in the computer, temporarily turn off your computer software firewall, and see if that helps.
If the above does not fix your problem, download and install the latest driver for your wireless card.
Some users have reported improved wireless performance by switching from WEP to WPA encryption.
If you continue to have problems, try the following:
For wireless g routers, try setting the "Transmission Rate" to 54 Mbps.
If you still have trouble, download and install the latest firmware for your router. After a firmware upgrade, you must reset the router to factory defaults, then setup the router again from scratch. If you saved a router configuration file, DO NOT use it.
Hope this helps.
Message Edited by toomanydonuts on 01-07-2009 05:14 AM

Brand new Macbook Pro slower than my 2006 Macbook

I bought a new Macbook Pro last month and upgraded the RAM to 4 GB and the hard drive to 500 GB. My previous Mac was a mid-2006 Macbook with 2 GB RAM.
I was expecting it to be noticeably faster than my 2006 Macbook (which is still running Tiger/10.4), but it isn't. Two things are particularly noticeable.
1) Startup time. The 2006 Macbook is 5 or 10 seconds faster starting up.
2) Safari. Safari is a couple of seconds faster loading identical websites on the 2006 Macbook. I tried updating Safari on the Macbook Pro to the new Safari 4 beta, and that is slightly faster, but still noticeably slower than on my Macbook.
I've tried running the set of Applescripts called "Maintenance" (available on the web) to do all regular maintenance tasks.
I've run software update. Everything is up to date.
Any suggestions of other things I should be checking to try to improve the speed of my Macbook Pro are much appreciated.
I find it really mystifying that performance is so noticeably worse on a brand new, much more powerful machine.
Thanks

Thanks for the replies.
In re the OS, I personally don't see many significant improvements in OS 10.5. Sure, little things here and there, but major power improvements over 10.4 that should cause startup time to be slower? I don't see it. I'm surprised in the design phase Apple's software engineers would allow longer startup time (always one of their biggest selling point over the Windows world) in return for such things as being able to hit the space bar in the finder to open a document quickly. I'm not using Time Machine, for instance, so that shouldn't be slowing down startup... or at least actually loading it in functioning mode shouldn't be slowing things down.
In re Safari, I'm doing as scientific a test as I possibly can here at home. Both computers sitting right next to each other, connected to the same network wirelessly, clicking on the same web link at exactly the same time. My 2006 Macbook is consistently faster at loading the page. Even more, it is significantly faster at loading the page to a "usable" point. For instance, if I click on the main page of the New York Times, the 2006 Macbook will load faster and will let me scroll down much earlier in the load process. On the 2009 MBP, the page shows up a few seconds slower, and it takes another few seconds more before the spinning beach ball stops and I can scroll down on the page. This is true both with Safari 3 and 4 on the MBP.
I just find it weird that a much more powerful computer, with a "new, improved" operating system and twice the amount of RAM, is noticeably more sluggish on these really basic tasks.
My next step is to go to the Apple store and try to compare mine to some other MBPs...
I have issues with some developments at Apple recently. For instance, the gen 2 iPod shuffle strikes me as a perfect design. Does it need to be smaller? Moving the controls to the headset seems really weird to me, much less convenient than the old one. I know that comment is OT, I just am starting to wonder about some decisions at Apple.
Not enough to make me complain seriously... I still vastly prefer Apple to the other options. But that sense I had for years that somebody really smart is paying attention to all these details and getting them right... that's starting to fade away for me. On the other hand, I do not have an iPhone and I think it's clear a lot of Apple's resources are going into the iPhone these days.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Why is InDesign CC significantly SLOWER than CS6?

InDesign CC is noticeably SLOWER in almost every aspect and functionality than is the latest version of InDesign CS6 on my computer (OSX 10.9.4, 2.66 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, 27 inch iMac). I have stopped using Indesign CC and now only use CS6 to create and adjust documents.
Can any staff or special users in this forum detail ADOBE's understanding or response to complaints of this nature?
This situation does not bode well for me, given the coerced direction Adobe is taking users of its creative suite (towards cloud based subscription systems).

I rebuilt all my preferences and that led to some kind of discovery. Starting InDesign CC everthing works ok (though the drawing tools are slightly slower than in CS6, creating a new page for example is much faster). All the following things mainly have an impact on drawing tools (pen tool, rectangle tool etc. placing multiple images is also affected but maybe because an image frame has to be drawn). After activating the application frame things start to slow down a bit. If I open the collapsed panels on right side things get slowed down again and the biggest hit on performance is evident when the information panel is open.
I wanted to record a screen-capture again but this is so slow that it does not represent the bug accurately. And I guess this has something to do with the user interface because all is linked to interface actions (application frame, opening/collapsing panels, showing the information panel)
Once again my system specs (when experiencing the issues half of my RAM was still free with Safari, Mail and InDesign CS6 and CC open for comparison):
InDesign CC (German)
Mac OS 10.8.4
MacBook Pro 17inch
8 GB RAM
2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
500 GB HD (200 GB free)

Why is new Westell 6100G slower than old 327W?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for