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

Similar Messages

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

Why is Time Capsule Internet Slower than Belkin Router?

My Time Capsule is conneted via Ethernet to my Belkin Wireless router and is serving as my wireless backup drive.
I am extending the Time Capsule "network" via an AirPort Express in order to boost the signal over distance.
However I find consistently that when I log into the Time Capsule, my internet access is significantly slower than if I access it over the Belkin wireless router, whether I use the Airport Express or not.
I've also found that logging into the Belkin from my Mac to do my Time Capsule backups seem to run considerably faster and have fewer "stalls" than when going direct to the Time Capsule, which also seems quite strange.
Is there some reason for this? Something in my settings conflicting? One would assume that with the Mac going directly to the Time Capsule which is connected directly via Ethernet, that it would be faster than going through the 3rd party Belkin router, or at least no different.

Let me just get it clear..
Belkin is main router..
TC is bridged and plugged into it by ethernet.
Express is doing extend wireless to the TC over 5ghz.
Now there is a couple of misunderstandings..
The Time Capsule is set for the 5GHz band ONLY to avoid conflict with the numerous 2.4GHz radios in close proximity, including the Belkin, automatic channel selection.
TC is not able to shut off the 2.4ghz.. even if you don't use it.. it will work.
So it is better to set it up and use it on fixed wireless channel out of the way. Indeed if it is some distance from the belkin rather than right next to it.. you can use roaming network setup. Both Belkin and TC use the same ssid ie wireless name.. same security ie WPA2 AES = WPA2 Personal. Same security password.
But different channel.. IMHO it is better to lock the wireless channel. Set TC to 11 and belkin to 1.
Wireless channel on 5ghz is less of an issue but I recommend lower end channels.. ie <40.
Extending wireless on 5ghz is often poor.. the range is actually bad.. and link speed can be worse than using 2.4ghz.. so I would carefully test the speed using wireless on 2.4ghz and then on 5ghz. .If possible only use 5ghz on single hop up close to the TC.
Any wireless that does double hop.. ie TC--Express--computer will go at half the speed of TC--computer, if they link at the same speed. This is caused by double hop wireless being highly inefficient way to extend wireless.
If the TC is faster by ethernet via the Belkin than via the TC I would find that difficult to follow and you will need to give me exact model number of the belkin.
That the belkin 2.4ghz wireless is faster than the TC is no surprise.. apple limit wireless to N lite at 2.4ghz.. whereas the belkin is probably 300mbit. And better signal.
You have heaps of testing to do.

Why are Tiger Connection Speeds Slower than Jaguar and PCs?

There is no doubt in my mind that Tiger (10.4.5 and 10.4.6 in my experience) connects to the Internet at speeds which are 20-25% slower than the speeds attained in Jaguar (I have no personal experience with Panther) and by PCs.
I have tested speeds at testmy.net and speakeasy.net on my Mac Mini running 10.4.6 (and before that 10.4.5), my iBook running 10.2.8, and my Dell Dimension 8250 running Windows XP. The iBook and Dell consistently measure 3400-3550 Kbps on a wireless connection to a LinkSys router and cable modem, whereas the Mini measures 2600-2900 Kbps (and sometimes much slower.) All three computers are next to one another, connecting to the same router and cable modem.
These results are very consistent over dozens of trials over a long period of time. They are not an aberration.
Any explanations or fixes? I have turned off IPv6, manually entered DNS servers in TCP/IP, tweaked settings with RMAC and Cocktail, but none of it has made a lasting difference. Interestingly, I have on a very few occasions found a speedup to PC and Jaguar levels on the first speed test only, after some of the listed adjustments.
Bob N.
Mac Mini 1.5 GHz; iBook 900 mHz; iPod 20 GB Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Im marking this as answered even though it isn't, just to get it off the list of unresolved questions, where it has gathered dust for many months.

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)

I have IE & Firefox on both my laptop and desktop. Why is Firefox so much slower than IE7? Firefox seems to take forever to load pages!

I have a HP laptop & Dell desktop with IE7 and Firefox. I use Firefox more as I like it better than IE, yet the pages in Firefox load so slow. I thought the new version of Firefox was so much faster, but it seems to drag along and take forever to load pages. Why is this??
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== 6/17/2010

Please ask your question on a forum for the Flash Player

Why is my video sounds slower than the video playing

Why when I record a video the sound starts way after the video has been started

Macs normally slow down a bit over time. Uninstall any unneccary apps and try keep the ammount of hard drive space free more than 50%. To find out how much hard drive space you have left click the apple logo in the menu bar and click "About This Mac" Then click on "More Info" and after that click on "Storage".
Also, try to see if there is anything wrong with your hard drive. To do so click on the liitle rocet icon (launchpad) in the dock and click on "Utilities". Then click on the "Disk Utility" app. Then select "Macintosh HD" in the left menu/ Then click "Repair Disk Permissions". Wait for it to finish. Then click "Verify Disk". Wait for it to finish.
After that, if Disk Utility says you have any hard drive errors, click "Repair Disk".
Lastly, try a good old restart!. This always speeds up a Mac.

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!

Why is PE12 so much slower than PE11?

I have been using PE11 on a quick machine with 8GB of RAM without any issues. Thought I'd 'Upgrade' to PE12 and everything is (literally) 10 times slower. I have to render everything before I can ply it in the timeline (never had to render in 11) and the rendering can be as slow as one frame a second. Obviously this is unworkable when I import 20mins of video and it's 40,000 frames to render. If I import the same info into PE11 it doesn't even need rendering. I can drag along the blue arrow and see it all move as fast as I like with the stuttered audio going along with it. In PE12 I need to move the arrow to a given point - stop it - and wait about 5 seconds to see the frame that is there and then it might play after about 5 seconds.
It's driving me mad and I just can't fathom it. Same machine - same file - same request of the software, but drastically different results.
I want to get my money back on PE12 as it was a waste of time - but don't know if that is possible.
Anyone else experiencing performance issues with 12?
Looking on the Internet in general it seems many many people have this issue (one chap had 32Gb RAM and experienced the same problems). Must be down to the software.
Cheers

Hi ATR - and thanks for the comprehensive comments. I am also running Windows 8.1 64 bit.
Appreciate the advice on getting a refund for the software - I may well use that if I can't find out why things are so slow.
I will try to answer your questions below...
I bought this laptop new a couple of weeks ago, so not much opportunity for things to get too clogged up yet - having said that, one of the programs that always goes on any of my PC's is Ccleaner so that was installed right away (and has been regularly run).
I actually tried the Adobe support chat 3 times last night - but each time I was onward connected to tech support and after pleasantries, they dissapeared each time. So I gave up on that.
Yes - I have 11 and 12 on this same machine. In fact I've been experimenting this afternoon with using each program in isolation and also together - loading snips of video and rendering / saving / exporting to DVD. I am burning a DVD now with 11 which is the only one I have the patience for at the moment. I'll try burning the same clip from 12 when this is done.
Then there are the typical questions...
a. What project preset?
b. What are the properties of what is going on that Timeline?
c. Even with your present computer environment, how much multitasking is going on?
d. Latest version of QuickTime installed?
e. Run As Admininstrator and User Account with Administrative Privileges?
f. Video card/graphics card driver version up to date according to the web site of the manufacturer of the video card/graphics card?
a. Not sure about the project preset (am new to Elements) but I guess they are default - I did notice when I went to 'adjust' and 'Smartfix' there was a green icon in it - so I clicked reset to get rid of that - thought that might have had a bearing on the slow speeds.
b. not sure of details here either - I have basically used a USB to phono convertor to transfer a load of Video8 footage off my camera with the default settting (MPEG). I've been capturing for about 30mins at a time and then putting 2 or 3 of the 30min sections into the timeline (but have also now played with far smaller (2 to 5 minute) sections of captured video to compare and contrast on speeds for various processes with more manageable chunks of video. Thus far I am leaving the video as is - I.e.apart from introducing a transition affect between sections, I have no narration or effects or soundtrack - just the raw MPEG video (and sound) on video1 and audio1
c. Multitasking apps / programs - I do have a few things running, but nothing serious - I will get rid of all else that's running when carrying out some more tests - good point, thanks.
d. Erm - not sure about QT - will have a look and update this evening if necessary
e. Yes - running as admin - although I possibly wasn't before... Do I have to right-click the icon to invoke this every time? I tested after running as admin and it made no difference
f. Like QT - I will check the video card software - being a new machine I did have it do quite a few updates when I got it home (including 8 to 8.1 upgrade).
I have now captured about 30 hours of Video8 from the late 80's onto the laptop and need to move on to my next video camera, the VHS-C beast which has early footage of the kids etc. It feels good to know I'm finally getting this stuff digitised, but I won't be able to cope with editing and burning it on DVD at the speed PrE12 is going...
Thanks again for the time in coming back to me. I shall address the QT and video card drivers issues tonight and see how I go.
Fundamentally, I just cannot see why I have such a pronounced difference in performance between the two versions - seems very odd.
Cheers,
Tom.

Why is the iPad Mini slower than iPod touch 4 at buffering video?

As mentioned in the title I have an iPad Mini that is being outperformed by my iPod touch 4. I have been using both devices on the same network and on You Tube the iPod is a lot faster at loading, Furthermore, when using BBC iPlayer I can connect with the iPod and watch whereas the iPad Mini comes up that there is insufficient bandwidth and doesn't even play.
I was convinced that the iPad Mini would be faster than my iPod which is a year older. I am really disappointed about this and have tried as many things as I can possibly think of. Is anyone else out there experiencing these problems and, if so, do you have any advice on what I can do to solve this problem.
Kind regards,
Emubob

I noticed that my iPad is far more sensitive to signal fluctuations than my MBP. The MBP would report 5 bars, but the iPad would drop the connection every 3 seconds. It turned out that the router was varying the signal, and the iPad couldn't keep a solid connection.

Why is Intel so much slower than AMD??

We have run into a problem with a few of our clients running Intel Pentium 4 (no hyperthreading) processors. Our web application under tomcat runs 20 - 30% slower on Intel (benchmarks scores are available). Our shop uses AMD Athlon processors and we have no performance problems at all.
We have had client come to our shop to verify that the application is indeed faster here and they always say that it is significantly faster.
We have developed benchmarks for certain parts of our system (formula calculation, and page rendering) and run themmon and AMD 2500+ and and Intel P4 2.4 Ghz . According to all industry standard (SiSoft Sandra, etc) benchmarks we have come across, these machine should perform roughly the same, with the AMD performing slightly (5-10%) above the Intel.
Has anyone come across this problem before?? Are there certain operations or combinations of operations in Java that are significantly slower on the Intel??
We are seeing this on both the Client and Server VMs. All machines are running JDK 1.4.2_04 on Windows XP SP 1.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040608\ACQBIZ200406080001BIZWIRE_USPR_____BW6209.htm&symbol=amd&selected=amd&kind=&mode=basics&formtype=&mkttype=&pathname=&page=news

Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Setup: Sager laptop NP8760 - CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7 820QM, 2648 MHz (20 x 132)
8GB ram running win 7 64 bit
I've found that trying to use the CS6 (cloud) version of Adobe bridge is not really possible unless you don't mind having 4-8 second pauses for nearly any use. Right clicking for any reason is guaranteed to cause a good 5 second wait to see the right click menu. The first click on any menu bar item also gauranteed to cause a 5-8 second wait. Repeatedly (happens whenever focus leaves bridge, no matter how momentary)
Of course if you are intent on working with your images you can't really put up with that much delay.
I end up using CS5 bridge with CS6 photoshop or any of the other CS6 tools, but some things are then impossible to do from bridge, to me the worst one is not being able to send selections of images thru the photoshop image processor. I have to start CS6 bridge and put up with its incredible contrariness to do that job.
Something that was done to bridge between CS5 and CS6 seems to be the likely place to look for the solution to this problem, but while I can read the lsted changes I don't know enough to be able to tell which might be responsible or what I can do about it.
My hardware is nothing breath taking but should be well adequate to run Bridge... especially when I've carefully turned off any other application that I am using.
I've noticed lots of talk here of redoing cache and moving cache etc. My cache is on a different disk than the program and I've purged it a time or two to make sure that wasn't the problem.
I've made no customizations to bridge so it should be installed all vanilla.

I have the same issue. Customer chat has not been able to resolve.
: CS6 Unresponsive.
2 second lag after clicking on any menu item.
4-8 second lag after right clicking on any image.
3 second lag while selecting images with arrow keys.
2 second lag selecting multiple images
My system is high performance:
. 12 Core 3.3Ghz Xeon Processors
. 24GB RAM
. Primary drive is 8 SSDs in a RAID0 configuration
. Dual nVidia Quadro FX5400
. OS: Win7 x64
CS5 and CS5.5 were very “snappy” in responsiveness on this system. CS6 Bridge works fine on my laptop, perfectly responsive.
Once Camera RAW or Photoshop are open, no issue working in these tools, so, the issue is bridge.
Here’s my debugging steps which have not worked to fix the issue:
Installed the latest camera RAW plug in from Nikon. Nikon D800 RAW .NEF files work in windows explorer and in CS5.5.
Installed all windows updates
Installed the lastest nvidia FX5800 card drivers
Uninstalled all Adobe products (reader, media player, etc.)
Uninstalled all plugs ins (HDR, noise, etc.)
Checked there are no fonts on the system (no TTF files)
Uninstalled Office 2013 to make sure there were no system font issues.
Uninstalled all Nikon software except the RAW plug in.
Deleted C:\Program Files\Adobe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe
Searched for any Adobe reference in c:\Users\<my_username>\ (example AppData), and deleted it.
Cleaned the registry of any reference to Adobe or any dll related to Adobe or an Adobe plug in.
Rebooted multiple times.
Re-installed CS6 Master Collection. At this point it did not recognize my raw photos (.NEF from a Nikon D800).
Installed all Adobe Updates.
The updates fixed the camera raw issue
Ran FontTest.jsx – all fonts passed, none failed.
Tried Preferences:
Advanced -> Use Software Rendering : CPU utilization went up, but, no impact on the lag
Startup Scripts : Disabled all but Photoshop CS6
Increased Cache Size, Compacted Cache, Purged Cache, Different Cache organizations, etc.
bob

Why is the MacBook Pro slower than my G4 1.25mhz?

I have been having issues with my MBP for a while now. It was 1.5 G of RAM and has been optimized. My iMovie runs very slow and it takes forever sometimes to empty the trash. It is just a very sensitive system? I can throw almost anything at my desktop and it operates fine. I thought the MBP would be blazing and its not. I understand that some of the applications I use are not native, but it shouldn't be running this slow. I have about 30gigs left on the hard drive also. Can anyone help?

Using a third-party optimizer (i.e., defragmenter) is risky on Intel Macs. I'm not sure there are any compatible defraggers. Improper defragging could be the cause of your problem. Transferring applications that were all PPC apps that have now replaced the pre-installed Intel apps. No wonder things are slow.
I suspect you need to erase the drive and reinstall the OS or at the very least repair the hard drive then do an Archive and Install.
For future reference OS X does not require defragmentation. OS X defrags all files under 20 MBs on the fly.
Here's some useful info on migrating from PPC to Intel Macs:
A Basic Guide for Migrating to Intel-Macs
If you are migrating a PowerPC system (G3, G4, or G5) to an Intel-Mac be careful what you migrate. Keep in mind that some items that may get transferred will not work on Intel machines and may end up causing your computer's operating system to malfunction.
Rosetta supports "software that runs on the PowerPC G3 or G4 processor that are built for Mac OS X". This excludes the items that are not universal binaries or simply will not work in Rosetta:
Classic Environment, and subsequently any Mac OS 9 or earlier applications
Screensavers written for the PowerPC
System Preference add-ons
All Unsanity Haxies
Browser and other plug-ins
Contextual Menu Items
Applications which specifically require the PowerPC G5
Kernel extensions
Java applications with JNI (PowerPC) libraries
See also What Can Be Translated by Rosetta.
In addition to the above you could also have problems with migrated cache files and/or cache files containing code that is incompatible.
If you migrate a user folder that contains any of these items, you may find that your Intel-Mac is malfunctioning. It would be wise to take care when migrating your systems from a PowerPC platform to an Intel-Mac platform to assure that you do not migrate these incompatible items.
If you have problems with applications not working, then completely uninstall said application and reinstall it from scratch. Take great care with Java applications and Java-based Peer-to-Peer applications. Many Java apps will not work on Intel-Macs as they are currently compiled. As of this time Limewire, Cabos, and Acquisition are available as universal binaries. Do not install browser plug-ins such as Flash or Shockwave from downloaded installers unless they are universal binaries. The version of OS X installed on your Intel-Mac comes with special compatible versions of Flash and Shockwave plug-ins for use with your browser.
The same problem will exist for any hardware drivers such as mouse software unless the drivers have been compiled as universal binaries. For third-party mice the current choices are USB Overdrive or SteerMouse. Contact the developer or manufacturer of your third-party mouse software to find out when a universal binary version will be available.
Also be careful with some backup utilities and third-party disk repair utilities. Disk Warrior (does not work), TechTool Pro (pre-4.5.1 versions do not work), SuperDuper (newest release works), and Drive Genius (untested) may not work properly on Intel-Macs. The same caution may apply to the many "maintenance" utilities that have not yet been converted to universal binaries.
Before migrating or installing software on your Intel-Mac check MacFixit's Rosetta Compatibility Index.
Additional links that will be helpful to new Intel-Mac users:
Intel In Macs
Apple Guide to Universal Applications
MacInTouch List of Compatible Universal Binaries
MacInTouch List of Rosetta Compatible Applications
MacUpdate List of Intel-Compatible Software
Written by Kappy with additional contributions from a brody.

Why is Wireless G router slower than Wireless B?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for