Why such a huge difference between wired and wi fi...

Hi,
I'm on Infinity with a curved Home Hub. I get speeds of 38 down and 8 up from a cabled connection to the hub and speeds of 18 down and 8 up on wi fi.
Why is there such a massive difference in speed between wi fi and wired?
I get the same result with the laptop sat next to the home hub over wi fi so I know it's not because of walls etc...
I've used inSSIDer to check I'm not using the same channel as anyone else.
I'm losing 20 meg thingys somewhere, I want to know whose got them!

Got the same one, yes its built in and as could be swapped with this
Might need a Computer shop or tursty geek to swap it out for you.
Check your exchange or major service outagesIf someone has given a helpful answer, please click on their Ratings star on the left-hand side. ***

Similar Messages

Why there is a difference between Router and PIX ACL

Hi,
I have a very basic question about the differences beween ACL behaviour in PIX and Router.
In Router if we put an extended acl entry and want to remove an mid entry then either we have to clear the entire ACL or remove the entries all the below.
Whereas in case of PIX we can remove any of the entry.
Why this difference is there.
Would appreciate your quick answers.
Thanks
Irshad

The PIX OS is designed such a way. Anyway, even in routers you can remove a mid entry by configuring named access-lists. You need not clear the entire ACL in this case.
ip access-list extended ROUTER-ACL
permit ip host x.x.x.x host y.y.y.y any

Massive difference between wired and wifi speed fr...

Our new wired Home hub is delivering around 36 MBPS but on wife is only getting 25... I know we lose some but this is ridiculous! Any thoughts a to why please?

There are many reasons for slower speeds on wireless and that is the reason that all ISPs will not guarantee speeds on wireless. Your speed difference is probably better than most.
Speeds can be effected by interference, distance from source, standard of receiving device, construction of property walls floors etc,
Some things you can try to improve it is check that the wireless card drivers on your device are upto date. Use the card manufactures website for that.
Download, install and run inSSider. It will show you the wireless channels and which one your Homehub is on. You want to find the channel with the least congestion, ie. least number of users. Once you have that you need to change your homehub onto that channel.
See link for insider
http://www.metageek.net/products/inssider/
See link how to change channel on homehub
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14094

WRT54G2 v1 - Substantial Speed Difference Between Wired and Wireless Connection

Hi everyone,
I have a WRT54G2 v.1 router connected to an RCN Cable Modem. My download transfer rate direct from the cable modem is 18 Mbps. Thankfully, I can get the same download rate when I plug my laptop into a wired ethernet connection from the router. However, the wireless connection only gets a download rate of 0.8Mbps. Also, my wireless card is pretty new (Intel 4965AGN) and has the latest driver (I can get far higher download rates at mobile hotspots, for instance). Here is what I've tried with the router:
- I've upgraded the router firmware to the latest build (Version 1.0.04, 07/08/2009).
- I've tried multiple channels on the network (1, 6, 11).
- I use WPA Security.
- Upon advice from the Linksys live chat support, I've changed the MTU settings to manual and set them to 1300.
- They also recommended that I change the following settings: “RTS Threshold” – 2304 “Fragmentation Threshold” – 2304 “Beacon Interval” – 50
- And of course: I've got my own SSID. The router is 5 feet off the ground. There are no other wireless devices that would cause interference. The router is not near large metal objects, fish tanks, or any other physical obstruction.
Is there anything else I can do? Thank you so much in advance for reading. I really appreciate it.

Also, is there anything to the fact that only the download rate seems to change?
Wired:
Wireless:

Why are there print differences between Reader and Acrobat Pro

I have a PDF file generated by InDesign (CS3). When I print the PDF from Reader (8.1.4) I get lighter text than when the same file is printed by Acrobat Pro (9.1.0). A close examination of the printed letters shows that the text printed from Reader is not solid black, while the text from Pro is solid black.
Is this typical or is there something I need to do to improve the printing from Reader?

I am a CADD Coord. (CADD Mgr)designer) I used to do a lot of design. Just recently we have noticed that anything printed from Adobe, the reader or the full version, is printing so lightly in many cases that it looks like it is missing data. whenever we create teh PDF from Autodesk products or Bluebeam Revue, it is the same. Bluebeam prints perfect. Yet the exact same file printed through Adobe is very, very light. Even printing as image it does this. And it appears at random. Some people print ok, but the exact same printer sent by someone else, using the same method, comes out too light in Adobe.
I have contacted Autodesk and they have punted it back. Anyone have any answers or clues to fix? i send out deliverables for clients all the time and I hate to find out they print and miss something of the design.

Why is this much difference between z2 and z1 of screen time,web browsing, video playback?

i have sony z1 phone...it's very nice but battery is not good. i have 5-5:30 of screen time from 100% down to 3-4%
I heard many people saying that z2 have at least 8 hours and i get this to look :http://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3
I am very disapointed.is there a solution to get more screen time or i will sell this z1? sorry for my bad English

It all depends on what else are you doing with the device during that time.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us - J.R.R. Tolkien

DBLoad utility: (huge) difference between Windows and Linux

Hello
I have a backfile of 55M entries to load. I have prepared it under Linux (Dual Core machine + 4GB - Mandriva distribution - java 1.6). When I run DbLoad, here is the (partial) log:
java -Xmx2048m -jar /home/pd51444/jNplMatchBackfile_Main_0.2/lib/je-3.3.69.jar DbLoad -h . -s group.db -f group.db.txt -v
loaded 2817812 records 63275 ms - % completed: 5
loaded 5624893 records 141023 ms - % completed: 10
loaded 8462602 records 962019 ms - % completed: 15
loaded 11285385 records 2401566 ms - % completed: 20
loaded 14094928 records 786746 ms - % completed: 25
loaded 16914275 records 8965457 ms - % completed: 30
loaded 19741557 records 15766560 ms - % completed: 35
loaded 22567310 records 2226015 ms - % completed: 40
loaded 25376363 records 19662455 ms - % completed: 45
Then I copied the exact same file on my Windows laptop (dual core + 2GB - XP - java 1.6), and DbLoad goes much faster:
C:\nplmatch\db>java -Xmx1024m -jar ..\jar\je-3.3.69.jar DbLoad -h . -s group.db -f group.db.txt -v
Load start: Thu Oct 02 10:33:23 CEST 2008
loaded 2817812 records 59876 ms - % completed: 5
loaded 5624893 records 69283 ms - % completed: 10
loaded 8462602 records 77470 ms - % completed: 15
loaded 11285385 records 69688 ms - % completed: 20
loaded 14094928 records 62716 ms - % completed: 25
loaded 16914275 records 59122 ms - % completed: 30
loaded 19741557 records 63200 ms - % completed: 35
loaded 22567310 records 58654 ms - % completed: 40
loaded 25376363 records 61482 ms - % completed: 45
loaded 28197663 records 58889 ms - % completed: 50
loaded 31019453 records 55937 ms - % completed: 55
loaded 33839878 records 62045 ms - % completed: 60
loaded 36664839 records 65749 ms - % completed: 65
loaded 39498035 records 100718 ms - % completed: 70
loaded 42302599 records 99733 ms - % completed: 75
loaded 45125268 records 96000 ms - % completed: 80
loaded 47947180 records 92749 ms - % completed: 85
loaded 50755655 records 85485 ms - % completed: 90
loaded 53578015 records 96240 ms - % completed: 95
Load end: Thu Oct 02 10:57:36 CEST 2008
Also I use the same je.properties file on both platforms.
Any idea where this performance problem comes from?
Thanks in advance
Best regards
Philippe

Hello Phillipe,
Nothing jumps out at me, but you might try the following:
. Check the status of disk write caches. On linux, the cache may be disabled and it may be enabled on windows.
. Does the windows machine have an SSD?
. Run with -verbose:gc to see if the Linux is being held up by full GC's.
. Use top or some other utility to see if something else is running on the linux box.
. Take some random c-\'s to get some stack traces to see what is going on when things get slow.
. Check on the JVM ergonomics. You may be getting a server or client JVM without knowing. Force it one way or the other with -server or -client.
Here is a (future) FAQ entry regarding disk write caches (poorly formatted at the moment):
During my system testing I pulled the power cord on my server to make the ultimate test of JE's durability claims. I am using commitSync() for my transactions, but some of the data that JE said it had committeed was not on disk when the system came back up. What gives?
Quoting the Berkeley DB Reference Guide:
Many disk drives contain onboard caches. Some of these
drives include battery-backup or other functionality that guarantees that all
cached data will be completely written if the power fails. These drives can
offer substantial performance improvements over drives without caching support.
However, some caching drives rely on capacitors or other mechanisms that
guarantee only that the write of the current sector will complete. These
drives can endanger your database and potentially cause corruption of your
data.
To avoid losing your data, make sure the caching on your disk
drives is properly configured so the drive will never report that data has
been written unless the data is guaranteed to be written in the face of a
power failure. Many times, this means that write-caching on the disk drive
must be disabled.
Some operating systems enable the disk write cache by default.
If you need true durability in the face of a power failure, then you should
verify that the disk write cache is disabled or that you have some alternative
means of ensuring durability (e.g. nvram, battery backup, an Uninterruptible
Power Supply (UPS), Solid State Disk (SSD), etc.) Some disk drives may
actually require changing hardware jumpers to enable/disable the write cache.
You can check the status of the write cache using the
hdparm utility on Linux and the format utility on Solaris.
On Windows, use the Windows Explorer. Right click on
the disk drive that you want to check, select Properties,
click on the Hardware tab, select the desired disk, click
on the Properties button, click on
Policies and verify the cache setting with the check box.
On Windows Server 2003 you generally disable the write caching
from within the RAID controller software (OEM specific).

Why there is a difference between table and view?

CREATE TABLE SK_ABC (ABC VARCHAR2(10),BBC NUMBER, CCD VARCHAR2(100), DDC DATE);
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW SK_ABC_V
AS SELECT ABC,BBC,SubStr(CCD,1,40) CCD FROM SK_ABC;after this am seeing CCD length in view as 160 in database. am expecting length as 40 or atleast it should give me 100 as table ccd data length is 100, but it is showing me as 160 is bit surprised...
can any one please explain me?
SELECT table_Name,column_name,data_length,column_id,char_used FROM ALL_TAB_COLS WHERE TABLE_NAME LIKE 'SK%' ORDER BY TABLE_nAME,COLUMN_ID;
TABLE_NAME COLUMN_NAME DATA_LENGTH COLUMN_ID CHAR_USED
SK_ABC         ABC                   10                   1                  B
SK_ABC         BBC                   22                   2
SK_ABC         CCD                  100                  3                  B
SK_ABC         DDC                     7                  4
SK_ABC_V     ABC                    10                  1                   B
SK_ABC_V     BBC                     22                  2
SK_ABC_V     CCD                    160                 3                   B

Hi,
This,
SubStr(CCD,1,40)You are taking 40 characters from CCD. You are probably using a multi byte character set, so the column will be 160 bytes. Your output shows char_used = B, that means length of column is taken in bytes.
Edit: Key word is NLS_LENGTH_SEMANTICS
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10766/tdddg_globalization.htm#TDDDG62910
I think the right thing would be to use char semantics when using multi byte character sets
Regards
Peter
Edited by: Peter on May 10, 2011 3:26 AM

What is the difference between avi and mov

Hi FCP users,
I am actually an audio guy, but I would like an answer on something.
I work with Logic, and usually use quicktime movies when I am working to movies. But I am working with a client who is an Avid user and swears by avi files. Can someone explain to me the difference. My client explained to me that avi's are better than mov files. He claims their file sizes are bigger, so therefore there quality is better. He said there is some form of compression on quicktime movies which lessen the quality to avi, even if the mov is uncompressed apparently the quality is still less than an uncompressed avi. If this is not true, could someone give me the real big difference between the two.
I thought is was more of a preference, like windows users prefer wav, and apple users like quicktime movies. Like with audio, there isnt a huge difference between aif and wav. Windows users prefer wav and apple users aif.
Thanks in advance for any information.

gazo wrote:
The vid guy has sent me some files to work with. So I am working in Final Cut to edit some of the video, and then sending it back to him. He is working on PC with Avid. What is the best. Should I convert the avi files he has sent to me to mov files. Then pull these into FCP, and then export it out as avi for him. Or should I export out as mov, and then he converts them to avi when he pulls it into Avid on his PC? Very confusing which is the best procedure between Mac and PC.
Thanks in advance for any help.
This is a disaster in the making. You can avoid being part of the train wreck by either renting an Avid, going to live at his house, or telling him to get a Macintosh.
You must find the lowest common denominator video format that will work on both of your systems. That could be conventional DV, dunno, never used Avid and never tried to edit anything on a PC. But I can tell you this with absolute certainty, it will be easier and, in the end, much less expensive for one of you to adopt the other's platform for the duration of this project. The time you waste transcoding, arguing, formatting your drives, buying secondary products, fitting round pegs into square holes, and trying to find a workable solution (that will keep changing as the project gets more complicated) will cost you much more in terms of money out of pocket and creative frustration than simply buying/renting another station.
bogiesan

Difference between BSID and GLT0

Hi,
there is a difference btw.:
1) sum of all open item with bsid-hkont = 123 in table BSID
and
2) balance of G/L account 123 (with tcode FS10N)
result of report RFDSLD00 = 1)
Why there is a difference between 1) and 2) ?
regards Andreas

Hi Andreas,
The issue seems to be very much caused because of change of reconciliation account for the vendors involved. I would suggest that you check if the reconciliation account for vendors have been changed. You can do so using the mass change report RFKABL00.
If it is not caused by that, then we have to look at a different reason.
Regards,
Shrikant
Financials - Inconsistencies

Why this difference between OTA and Ovi suite upda...

I have a doubt about the recent Anna update that was available for S ^3 phones.I updated my C6-01 thru OTA and the size of the update was 26MB. Including the other additional 4 updates the total update size was around 80 to 90 MB. But on Ovi suite or NSU the update was reported to be around 270MB by the users here. Why this huge difference between the two methods of update? So does that mean there is any difference between updating via OTA and PC?
In Love With My C6-01:Now running on Nokia Belle!

The difference is Ovi suite install is like installation from a clean slate. It installs everything from top to bottom as a fresh installation. But via OTA, the installation does an install of only the files that need to be updated or additionally installed for the fresh OS. So only the big difference in size. So in reality both the methods are more or less the same...
blitZkid
Nokia C7: Running on Nokia Belle
"If I'm helpful in anyway, a click of appreciation on the star would be nice"

Why is my SSD showing 250mb/s difference between read and write...

So i have recently upgraded to a SSD in my 2011 MBP. 2.4Ghz i5 16Gb RAM. I swapped my HDD with a Samsung 840 Series 250Gb SSD, I noticed a huge speed bump. See attached photos. Read is clocked at 503MB/s peak, and Write is clocked at 260MB/s peak on the SSD. My Question is why is there a 250MB/s difference between read and write?? Using Black Magic Disk Speed test. Mac OS X 10.8.4 Beta.
Thanks

Writes are performed very differently on SSD than they do on a hard drive, and it is common for SSDs to have lower write speeds than reads.
It's actually quite interesting if you're a geek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_amplification
As long as the speeds do match your manufacturer specification for the model (and they do: http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/MZ-7TD250BW ) , there is nothing to be concerned about.

Difference between 32 and 64 and why is 64 your preference

Hi, can someone please explain the difference between 32 and 64 bit and why the 64 is a preference for some of you? I'm more concerned about peripherals and printers working with Vista Ultimate on 64bit, before purchasing and installing CS4 onto a new computer. Thank you.

Bear in mind that to run 64 bit you need (a) a computer able to do
this and (b) the 64-bit edition of Vista (not the normal one).
Good things:
* Can run 64-bit programs that use more than 2 GB (Photoshop CS4 will
be one of these).
* Can use more than 3 to 3.5 GB of RAM in total
* Each program can use up to 2 GB (if available)
* The excess is available for cacheing disk
Bad things
* Driver and software availability needs checking. Little things may
not work (e.g. in Acrobat, PDF preview in icons). Or big things.
* 64-bit applications will need 64-bit plug-ins
* Less mainstream, overall support may be more limited if things don't
work.
* 64-bit programs are a little larger and use a little more RAM than
their 32-bit equivalents.
Myths
* "64 bit programs will go faster than 32 bit programs". Myth, unless
the program can make use of more than 2 GB of RAM.
* "All programs will go faster in 64 bit Windows". Myth, unless the
extra memory you can use reduces the amount of disk operation.
Aandi Inston

Why would i connect a external hardrive to the airport extreme and what is the difference between LAN and WAN gigabit ethernet?

Hey just wanted to know what is the reason i would connect my external hardrive to the extreme and what is the difference between LAN and WAN ehternet. I know one is local and other is wide but can someone explain in simpler terms.

Connecting a hard drive to the Airport Extreme makes it available to be shared across all the computers on your network.
WAN (Wide Area Network) is your connection to the internet
LAN (Local Area Network) is your internal (or local) ethernet connections (computers, printers, etc...)
AirPort Base Station: About the WAN and LAN Ports

Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

The NEW macbook Pro and Air are EXTREMELY close in form factor
The newest macbook Pro is essentially a larger macbook Air with Retina display and options for speed in increasing prices up to an independent graphics and quad core processor.
both Air and new Pro now have PCIe SSD and permanent RAM.
The Air is the lightweight portable form factor, fast to boot and shut down, but with longer battery life than any of the macbook pro in 13"
Now the new macbook Pro and macbook Air are extremely close in form factor and nature.
both have 802ac wifi
both have permanent RAM, no superdrive
both are slim profiles and SSD
The only real differences now are (in the most expensive Pros) faster processors and quadcore processors and top end model autonomous graphics.
....and of course the retina display
both are now "very good for travel"
Other than features the form factor of the Air and Pro are VERY close now,....so now its merely a matter of features and price more than anything.
You need an external HD regardless of what you get for backups etc. Drop into an Apple store and handle both and make your choice based on features, such as Retina or non-retina, .... both at a distance now look like the same computer.
The Pro weighs more, ....but nowhere near what it used to just a month ago on the older macbook Pros
The NEW macbook Pro is a different creature entirely than the older macbook Pro, .....the new Pro is thicker than the Air, but id frankly call the NEWEST Pro a "macbook Air with Retina display" , or
Maybe a “macbook Air PRO with Retina display”
Instead of Air VS Pro now,.....its really a smooth transition from Air to pro without comparing say, 2 different creatures, now its like contrasting a horse from a race horse.
Either one in 8gig of RAM (preferably)... the 4gig upgrade costs very little, the I7 you will notice only 15% faster on heavy applications over the I5, and NOTHING on most APPS.....I5 has longer battery life.
As you see below, the non-Retina 13" AIR is 82% of the Macbook with Retina display in resolution
there is no magical number of pixels per inch that automatically equates to Retina quality.
http://www.cultofmac.com/168509/why-you-might-be-disappointed-by-the-resolution- of-those-new-retina-display-macs-feature/
A huge internal SSD isnt a game changer for anything, you need an external HD anyway
what you WONT READ on Apple.com etc. is that the larger SSD are MUCH FASTER due to SSD density
"The 512GB Samsung SSD found in our 13-inch model offers roughly a 400MB/s increase in write speeds over the 128GB SanDisk/Marvell SSD"
http://blog.macsales.com/19008-performance-testing-not-all-2013-macbook-air-ssds -are-the-same
Here is an excellent video comparison between the 11” I5 vs. I7 2013 Macbook Air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqJ-on03z4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-465 0u/2
I5 vs. I7 performance 13” Macbook Air 2013
Boot performance
11.7 I5 ……11.4 I7
Cinebench
1.1 I5….1.41 I7
IMovie Import and Opt.
6.69 I5….5.35 I7
IMovie Export
10.33 I5…8.20 I7
Final Cut Pro X
21.47 I5…17.71 I7
Adobe Lightroom 3 Export
25.8 I5….31.8 I7
Adobe Photoshop CS5 Performance
27.3 I5…22.6 I7
Reviews of the newest Retina 2013 Macbook Pro
13”
Digital Trends (13") - http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-...h-2013-review/
LaptopMag (13") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...play-2013.aspx
Engadget (13") - http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/29/m...-13-inch-2013/
The Verge (13") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5...ay-review-2013
CNet (13") - http://www.cnet.com/laptops/apple-ma...-35831098.html
15”
The Verge (15") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5...w-15-inch-2013
LaptopMag (15") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...inch-2013.aspx
TechCrunch (15") - http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/lat...ok-pro-review/
CNet (15") - http://www.cnet.com/apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-2013/
PC Mag (15") - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426359,00.asp
Arstechnica (15") - http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10...-pro-reviewed/
Slashgear (15") - http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-pro...2013-26303163/

Why such a huge difference between wired and wi fi...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for