Why is using AppleTv more reliable than Remote?

WE have itunes setup on a PC upstairs, we have an AppleTV setup in the family room, to our TV and to the stereo using the optical out. EVERTTHING is connected with hardwired Ethernet cable!
When we use the REMOTE ap from our iPhones to play iTunes through the stereo, the music often stutters. If we switch to using the AppleTV to play our iTunes, it plays flawlessly. Why?

The music does not sutter constantly, but ever couple of minutes or so it cuts out for a second, restarts, and repeats a couple times. This is while using the REMOTE app to control the PC iTunes.
If we use the AppleTV interface (on the TV) and the Apple TV remote-control hardware, no stutters.
Again this makes no sense. In both cases the source files are coming from the PC iTunes, over wired Ethernet to the AppleTV.
Of course when using the REMOTE app, the PC iTunes being controlled by the REMOTE app is set to use AirPlay to play to the AppleTV,
and with using the AppleTV, the AppleTV talks directly to the PC iTunes.
But either way, files are just moving from the PC iTunes to the AppleTV and then to the stereo.

Similar Messages

Why 3g slower but more reliable than WiFi

Hi all,
I did a ton of testing on WiFi and 3g yesterday on my 32gig 3gs. The best I could get out of WiFi at my house was just about 11 Mbps down and 5 up. The best on 3g I've seen was just approaching 1 Mbps up and down. So I think WiFi should get my downloads about 10 times as fast and hopefully more reliable, but it doesn't seem to be the case. WiFi will load what seems to be just as slow as 3g but if I try to skip foreward on a video or something it will glitch out or just stop loading. But with 3g I can skip foreward and it will catch up to where I want to be and continue the video.
I guess that's not really a question but I want to see if anyone else agrees or knows a possible fix.

My wifi is far faster and more consistent then 3g too. On my home wifi (also in an apartment) I think I'm using channel 9, and I also have my wireless router set to 802.11g-only (for my iPhone, printer, and two computers all connected via wifi).
If you are getting starts and stops and such, also check for placement and possible interferance. If you have cordless telephones, are they DECT, 5Ghz or what? Is your wifi router placed up high, or near the floor (higher will usually give better signal). Is it near a stereo, television, microwave, house fan, air purifier, or other device that may cause interference? Are you usually in a place where there is a wall (or two) between you and the router (and if so, are they bare walls, or are there nice big metal appliances up against them)?
There are all sorts of things that can mess up a wifi signal - in most home's, I'm amazed it works at all! Just kidding, but there are a number of things you can check out to be sure you are getting the best, most robust signal possible.

Is DVD Studio Pro More Reliable Than iDVD?

Is DVD Studio Pro more reliable than iDVD?
Because my needs are simple, I thought I'd just use iDVD to burn DVDs. I created a movie in Final Cut Express, exported it as a Quicktime movie with chapter markers, and created an iDVD project around it. The iDVD project recognizes the chapter markers and it all plays just fine from within iDVD, but I haven't been able to successfully burn a DVD of the project.
The video is a little over an hour long. When I start the burn process a box tells me that it will take something like 3 hours and 45 minutes, and the clock starts ticking down. Fine. Then somewhere around two hours later, iDVD quits and I get a message saying only that iDVD "quit unexpectedly." (As if I didn't know that.) The same thing happens when I try to save as a disc image instead of burning directly to a DVD. I've got plenty of hard disk space, have repaired permissions, etc.
This leaves me wondering whether DVD Studio Pro might be a more robust program. This is a very simple project -- one video, 13 chapters -- so it's very disappointing that iDVD can't seem to deal with it.
So -- is there any general consensus about how DVD Studio Pro compares to iDVD in terms of stability and reliability?

I do not think there is a clear answer on that one. I use both and find iDVD has less issues than DVD SP (not that DVD SP has a ton of issues, but enough that eventually you will probably run into something that will throw things off and will need to know the workaround.)
If you look at the boards you will see people that have problems with both applications. Not that either one is bad, but since boards are designed to help with issues, it is rare that you get someone saying "Wow this has been rock solid for a year" so it is always a grain of salt.
DVD SP does give you more control over things, but by the same token it may not be the application you need. In other words since it is now part of the Final Cut Studio you would need to take a look at the Studio and see if it is something you want. The iApps overall, IMHO, do quite alot for many things and I use them often depending on what I am trying to do. Your project should work it sounds like and there may be something going on (well yes there is of course) You may want to take a quick look at these threads where people have quit issues with iDVD and see if any of the details in th workflow, computer etc are similar and if there are solutions.
QUit iDVD Issues
Hope this helps a bit

Why is outer join more expensive than inner joins.

Why is outer join more expensive than inner joins.
Other than it may return more rows.
If you know of any ORA docs on this, please let me know.
Thanks.

Outer join is inner join with outer union applied on top of it. As you correctly observed it returns more rows and that alone makes it more expensive. Secondly, outer join is not commutative. As a result some join permutations are exclused from consideration, which results in higher cost.

Intel more reliable than G4 ??

hi, all
i have an old iMac 233 MHz, still running (except that it never would wake up correctly, otherwise NO problem for 8 years!!) . 20 months ago i bought an iMac G5 20", which developed recently major problems, which are NOT solved after the official apple service exhanged the logic board. 10 days ago, i bought for my daughter an miniMac G4, which now already showed Kernel-Panics. These are things which fall under Apple warranty, and are not the topics of this post here.
my question is the following:
I need another computer, small type desktop like the mini. Laptop might be a solution as well, but is expensive and less suitable. The past experience with my iMac and the miniMac g4 get me suspicious about the reliability of Aplle.
has anybody some kind of overview on whether the miniMac intel (single processor) are more reliable -- well, i know: how to gauge it? thus
"more reliable than my experience with G4 and G5 machines"?
any response is welcome, and "Thanks in advance"
Thomas

Hello,
That is a tough one to answer with certainty since we don't have real numbers to play with. But, from my perspective, the Mac Mini G4 was the most reliable computer Apple has produced since the introduction of the Mini. I've had nothing but good reliable service from mine, and all the other new machines I've purchased since the G4 mini have been sold because they kept breaking down. So, I've repeatedly gone back to my slower mini G4 because of it's reliability.
The Intel Mini seems to have had comparable success to the G4 Mini. It would appear from most reports that the Intel Mini is almost as reliable as the G4 mini. For most accounts, it would seem to be on equal footing. But, there are more graphical anomalies and sound problems that have cropped-up in the Intel versions. These are not necessarily wide-spread problems, but just problems that were not present in the G4 versions.
So, from what I have seen and experienced, I would compare the G4 Minis and Intel Minis as being very much the same in terms of reliability. I would add that the Intel Mini has had problems that the G4 Mini has not had. But, that does not appear to be a significant number of units. So, they are probably very comparable.
Whether this helps or not, I don't know. But, I hope it does help you to some degree.
Let us know if you have other questions.

Why fixed layout is more expensive than reflow?

Hi
i'm a beginner in epub and css.
I noticed that fixed layout is more expensive than reflow and i do not understand why.
To my mind, the work is the same : modify css and some other pages (toc etc.)
so the price should be the same.
sorry for this question which must be stupid, but i need to know:)
Ced

Fixed Layout EPUB with InDesign currently requires knowledge of custom plug-ins to precisely position objects on the page. You're not getting any help from InDesign. It can be quite time consuming.
Reflowable EPUB with InDesign CC can be mostly done by properly formatting the document with styles, by using the Articles panel, by customizing objects with Object Export Options, by mapping styles to tags, etc. Most of the work is done in InDesign and it requires less time.
I can say publicly that Douglas Waterfall, InDesign's software architect, has hinted that he is leading work on the Fixed Layout area and we may see big changes before long.

Quitting & Reopening Mail is more reliable than Get Mail

Almost anytime I suspect Apple Mail not to be showing me my mail, I close and reopen it, and am flooded with email. Why does Get Mail not work reliably?

It is all because of the connection...
when you close Apple mail client the connection to the server closes as well, and soon you start up, it connects and all runs smoothly.
when you click GetMail button, the connection it might be already available, so it needs to clean up the buffer, check if it was downloading something, verify this and that... and then get email content... and sometimes (but only sometimes) it is best to close the connections (closing the Mail client).
as I said in the beginning, it's all about your connection, DSL connections have more problems than High speed cable ones, but... at least now you know why!
P.S. here I never shut down the Mail, i always get t soon I press GetMail (I do have several accounts, including Google Mail, on Apple mail)

Why SQL2 took much more time than SQL1?

I run these 2 SQLs sequencely.
--- SQL1: It took 245 seconds.
create table PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118_bak
as
select * from PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118;
--- SQL2: It took 3105 seconds.
create table PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121_bak
as
select * from PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121;
It is really strange that SQL2 took almost 13 times than SQL1, with nearly same data amount and same data structure in the same tablespace.
Could anyone tell me the reason? or How could I find out why?
Here is more detail info. for my case,
--- Server:
[@wapbi.no.sohu.com ~]$ uname -a
Linux test 2.6.18-128.el5 #1 SMP Wed Dec 17 11:41:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--- DB
Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.1.0 - 64bit Production
--- Tablespace:
CREATE TABLESPACE PORTAL DATAFILE
'/data/oradata/wapbi/portal01.dbf' SIZE 19456M AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 1024M MAXSIZE UNLIMITED,
'/data/oradata/wapbi/portal02.dbf' SIZE 17408M AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 1024M MAXSIZE UNLIMITED
LOGGING
ONLINE
PERMANENT
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL AUTOALLOCATE
BLOCKSIZE 8K
SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT AUTO
FLASHBACK ON;
--- Tables:
SQL> select table_name,num_rows,blocks,avg_row_len from dba_tables
2 where table_name in ('PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118','PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121');
TABLE_NAME                       NUM_ROWS     BLOCKS AVG_ROW_LEN
PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118             20808536     269760          85
PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121             33747911     440512          86
CREATE TABLE PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118
IP           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
NODEPATH     VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
PG           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
PAGETYPE     INTEGER,
CLK          VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
FR           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
PHID         INTEGER,
ANONYMOUSID VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
USID         VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
PASSPORT     VARCHAR2(200 BYTE),
M_TIME       CHAR(4 BYTE)                     NOT NULL,
M_DATE       CHAR(6 BYTE)                     NOT NULL,
LOGDATE      DATE
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
NOCACHE
NOPARALLEL
MONITORING;
CREATE TABLE PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121
IP           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
NODEPATH     VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
PG           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
PAGETYPE     INTEGER,
CLK          VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
FR           VARCHAR2(20 BYTE),
PHID         INTEGER,
ANONYMOUSID VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
USID         VARCHAR2(50 BYTE),
PASSPORT     VARCHAR2(200 BYTE),
M_TIME       CHAR(4 BYTE)                     NOT NULL,
M_DATE       CHAR(6 BYTE)                     NOT NULL,
LOGDATE      DATE
LOGGING
NOCOMPRESS
NOCACHE
NOPARALLEL
MONITORING;Any comment will be really appeciated!!!
Satine

Hey Anurag,
Thank you for your help!
Here it is.
SQL1:
create table portal.PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118_TEST
as
select * from portal.PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1    374.69     519.05     264982     265815     274858    20808536
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        2    374.69     519.05     264982     265815     274858    20808536
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: SYS
Rows     Row Source Operation
      0 LOAD AS SELECT (cr=268138 pr=264982 pw=264413 time=0 us)
20808536   TABLE ACCESS FULL PORTAL_DAYLOG_100118 (cr=265175 pr=264981 pw=0 time=45792172 us cost=73478 size=1768725560 card=20808536)SQL2:
create table portal.PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121_TEST
as
select * from portal.PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
Execute      1   1465.72    1753.35     290959     291904     300738    22753695
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        2   1465.72    1753.35     290959     291904     300738    22753695
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: SYS
Rows     Row Source Operation
      0 LOAD AS SELECT (cr=295377 pr=290960 pw=289966 time=0 us)
22753695   TABLE ACCESS FULL PORTAL_DAYLOG_100121 (cr=291255 pr=290958 pw=0 time=56167952 us cost=80752 size=1956817770 card=22753695)Best wishes,
Satine

Could you tell me why does Mac is more expensive than Windows?

I love Apple, don't get me wrong. Just, i see Mac is more expensive than Windows.

Windows is an operating system for which you pay money. Mac's operating system, Mavericks, is free.
If you are speaking of hardware, then you need to make a specific hardware comparison of apples with apples, not apples and oranges.

After changing from my 3S to a 5, I use much more data than before why?

My Iphone5 uses an accessive amount of data, a lot more than my 3S and I am on the internet the same amount to time.. any clues of why?

Your 5 has more than your 3S.
BTW, Nobody here can know how your iPhone is configured, so you need to supply more info for a better answer.
Read here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4146

Why is verizon showing more data than I use?

So i am on a family plan where there is two smartphones each line is billed separate for 2gb each for a total of 4 gb. According to verizon I have been going over my data. Yet I watch it carefully with my built-in app and the verizon approved app, I have text alerts that notifies me of overages and the closest I have came to going over is 90%, and we have never had an overage on our bill. This is not coming from one rep either I have spoke to multiple different reps and each have said we are using between 6-7gb which is not true. I am positive there is a glitch in your software just trying to get them to understand that is the problem? Has anyone else experienced this problem?

Neil Goldstein2 wrote:
Do I have to also delete the apps on the mac I'm syncing to before initiating wireless sync?
No. You must configure the sync characteristics.

Why HTML report takes more time than the PDF one?

Hi,
I have created report in Reports 6i. When I run the report on the web with FORMAT = PDF it runs very fast and shows all the pages in 2 minutes. But when I run with
FORMAT = HTML it shows the first page in 2 minutes, after that it takes lot of time to show the remaining pages. If the total pages are more than 40, the browser just freezes
Can somebody give me the reason?
Is there any way to rectify this?
Thanks alot.
Ram.

Hi Senthil,
Iam running with the below parameters.
Format : HTML
Destination : Screen.
My default browser is IE. When I try to run using Netscape it showed only 1 page out of 34 pages.
When I run Format as PDF it is faster but font size is small when it opens up. Offcourse user can zoom it.
If I increase the report width from 11 to 14 the font size becomes very small when it open up in browser.
Is there any way that I can set up zoom when I run as PDF?
Thanks for your help.
Ram.

Why is a monitor more expensive than a hd lcd tv

why is a 30 inch hd lcd monitor £1900 when you can buy a 32 inch panasonic or a sony high definition lcd tv with digitl buit in, hdmi sockets and use it for every thing for £1400?
can some 1 explain this to me, you can even get samsungs for £1050 which is less still.
can some 1 explain this to me, and dont try to tell me that the apple display will give you a far better picture because it wont

Its to do with resolution. The Apple monitors support a higher resolution, therefore, require individual pixels. So, on a 20" monitor, the resolution is 1680x1050, on a TV screen, this is usally 1024x768 or 1280x768 (widescreen). This is because most broadcasts are 500-lines or so for normal definition, or 720 or scalled down from 1080 for HD resolution. But computer monitors are used for multi-tasking, etc, so require a high resolution to open lots of apps and view them at the same time. Making these panels requires a more expensive manufacturing process to get the panels made with the minimal of errors and dead pixels. A 30" LCD TV for HD would have a resolution of 1376x768 or 1280x768, the Apple HD monitor has one of 2560x1900 - way better - this is why it'll be better to get a Mac monitor for an extremely sharp picture with no scalling of HD footage, you'll get the full quality.

Movie using much more space than file size

Hello. I published a movie in imovie to the media gallery in HD. It is a long video, so I knew it would take up a lot of space. It is listed as 5 GB in my imovie project folder. However, when I "show package contents" of the movie, the actual size of the 720 movie is only 1.3 gb. All of the other folders listed in the contents are just a few MB. Any idea why this is using 5gb of not only my hard drive, but of my Mobile Me space, when it seems like the video should only be using 1.5 GB.
You can see the video here, but obviously it takes some time to buffer.
Thanks.Hello. I published a movie in imovie to the media gallery in HD. It is a long video, so I knew it would take up a lot of space. It is listed as 5 GB in my imovie project folder. However, when I "show package contents" of the movie, the actual size of the 720 movie is only 1.3 gb. All of the other folders listed in the contents are just a few MB. Any idea why this is using 5gb of not only my hard drive, but of my Mobile Me space, when it seems like the video should only be using 1.5 GB.
You can see the video here, but obviously it takes some time to buffer.
Thanks.
http://web.me.com/andysinger1/ClassicVideo/MacabbiGames2010.html

I am not using mobile me, because I designed a website specifically to show my videos, and this way I can send out one page at a time without people having access to the entire gallery.
I would rather not compress the videos, as wouldn't this take some quality away.All I did was choose the "large" option on iweb
But the strange part is, why is the video listed as 5GB in size, but when I open up the contents (show file contents", I see that the actual movie is only 1-2 GB in size?
Thanks

Why is the Touch more expensive than the phone?

The iPhone which does MORE than the iPod Touch is $100 cheaper for the 32GB model! What the heck?!?
iPhone 3G S 32GB $299
iPod Touch 32GB $399

F Shippey wrote:
The actual price is reflected in the 'No-commitment pricing': $599 (16GB) and $699 (32GB)
To get the lower prices you must sign a 2 year contract and a portion of each month's payment goes to paying off the difference in price.
If this 'no-commitment price' is true, then how come I don't see it listed in their online store?

Why is using AppleTv more reliable than Remote?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for