isn't it too slow ?

Hello,

I have two notebooks : one with windows xp sp2 + linksys wrt54gc and the
other one has Vista premium + core 2 duo so it is equipped with wifi
(a/b/g/n).

I have linksys router - wrt 300n which provides internet connection for my
laptops and allows them to be seen to each other.

I have noticed that the speed I can copy the files between my notebooks is
as low as ~500 KB/s - 900 KB/s which I think is too slow. I regard the
proper speed should be at least 3 MB/s. The signal strenght is "excellent"
and the notebooks are in the same room. I use DHCP.

Please, give me a piece of advice what to do to increase this dramatically
low speed.

"AMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:fq2pu2$hta$(E-Mail Removed):

> Hello,
>
> I have two notebooks : one with windows xp sp2 + linksys wrt54gc and
> the other one has Vista premium + core 2 duo so it is equipped with
> wifi (a/b/g/n).
>
> I have linksys router - wrt 300n which provides internet connection
> for my laptops and allows them to be seen to each other.
>
> I have noticed that the speed I can copy the files between my
> notebooks is as low as ~500 KB/s - 900 KB/s which I think is too slow.
> I regard the proper speed should be at least 3 MB/s. The signal
> strenght is "excellent" and the notebooks are in the same room. I use
> DHCP.
>
> Please, give me a piece of advice what to do to increase this
> dramatically low speed.

You haven't heard of the Vista issue with slow network transfers ?

U¿ytkownik "DanS" <(E-Mail Removed)> napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci news:Xns9A534CF524693thisnthatadelphianet@66.250.1 46.128...
> "AMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:fq2pu2$hta$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have two notebooks : one with windows xp sp2 + linksys wrt54gc and
>> the other one has Vista premium + core 2 duo so it is equipped with
>> wifi (a/b/g/n).
>>
>> I have linksys router - wrt 300n which provides internet connection
>> for my laptops and allows them to be seen to each other.
>>
>> I have noticed that the speed I can copy the files between my
>> notebooks is as low as ~500 KB/s - 900 KB/s which I think is too slow.
>> I regard the proper speed should be at least 3 MB/s. The signal
>> strenght is "excellent" and the notebooks are in the same room. I use
>> DHCP.
>>
>> Please, give me a piece of advice what to do to increase this
>> dramatically low speed.
>
> You haven't heard of the Vista issue with slow network transfers ?
>

Thanks for your answer. Now I have read about this problem. To fix this
issue I have disabled RDC and even gone to the command prompt and typed :
netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled

It works neither so I'm still looking for a fix. Maybe you can provide me
with a link to a fix / update. I haven't foud any fix that works.

Thanks a lot.

"AMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:fq9g8e$srv$(E-Mail Removed):

>
> U¿ytkownik "DanS" <(E-Mail Removed)> napisa³ w
> wiadomo¶ci news:Xns9A534CF524693thisnthatadelphianet@66.250.1 46.128...
>> "AMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:fq2pu2$hta$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have two notebooks : one with windows xp sp2 + linksys wrt54gc and
>>> the other one has Vista premium + core 2 duo so it is equipped with
>>> wifi (a/b/g/n).
>>>
>>> I have linksys router - wrt 300n which provides internet connection
>>> for my laptops and allows them to be seen to each other.
>>>
>>> I have noticed that the speed I can copy the files between my
>>> notebooks is as low as ~500 KB/s - 900 KB/s which I think is too
>>> slow. I regard the proper speed should be at least 3 MB/s. The
>>> signal strenght is "excellent" and the notebooks are in the same
>>> room. I use DHCP.
>>>
>>> Please, give me a piece of advice what to do to increase this
>>> dramatically low speed.
>>
>> You haven't heard of the Vista issue with slow network transfers ?
>>
>
> Thanks for your answer. Now I have read about this problem. To fix
> this issue I have disabled RDC and even gone to the command prompt and
> typed : netsh interface tcp set global autotuninglevel=disabled
>
> It works neither so I'm still looking for a fix. Maybe you can provide
> me with a link to a fix / update. I haven't foud any fix that works.
>
> Thanks a lot.

Sorry, I can not. If this is indeed the Vista-slow-network-transfer
problem, and not just a possible driver issue, there is no *absolute* fix
for it.

Some have said SP1 (still beta) for Vista has fixed it. Others have said
that other individual updates that had come down thru WU have fixed it,
or, made it better.

Others still have no solution. It's pretty much hit & miss on this Vista
bug.

DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Sorry, I can not. If this is indeed the Vista-slow-network-transfer
>problem, and not just a possible driver issue, there is no *absolute* fix
>for it.

True. I have a customer, where the slow file transfer problem became
a major issue. I tried every Vista tweak I could find, including the
withdrawn Pre-SP1 pre-requiste patches. Most of the machines
responded to the fix, but one HP Pavilion something did not. I shoved
in a 2nd ethernet card, disabled the one on the motherboard, and that
fixed the problem. It seems to be a combination of Vista, ethernet
drivers, hardware, and magic.

>Some have said SP1 (still beta) for Vista has fixed it. Others have said
>that other individual updates that had come down thru WU have fixed it,
>or, made it better.

SP1 is due for release on Mar 18. Holding my breath as I have some
customers that are angry at *ME* because Vista is such a slug.
Why me?

>Others still have no solution. It's pretty much hit & miss on this Vista
>bug.

I'm doing my 9th Vista to XP downgrade today. Several were dual boot
with both Vista and XP on the same HD. Not easy, but possible.
Hint: Make image backups before blundering onward.

Incidentally, Dell Optiplex 755 (XP SP2, 2.6GHz Intel dual core,
1333MHz FSB, SATA-II, 2GB RAM, etc). Boots XP from cold start in 70
seconds (to when the HD light stops flashing and task manager CPU
indicator goes to zero) with all the usual junk loading on boot. Word,
Excel, and most apps are up and ready in about 3 seconds. It play a
DVD in the background to a 2nd monitor without any noticeable
slowdown. Why would I need or want Vista with that kind of
performance?

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

~ I have two notebooks : one with windows xp sp2 + linksys wrt54gc and the
~ other one has Vista premium + core 2 duo so it is equipped with wifi
~ (a/b/g/n).
~
~ I have linksys router - wrt 300n which provides internet connection for my
~ laptops and allows them to be seen to each other.
~
~ I have noticed that the speed I can copy the files between my notebooks is
~ as low as ~500 KB/s - 900 KB/s which I think is too slow.

What makes you think that that is too slow? Have you connected your two
computers up via a 100Mbps or 1Gbps wired connection and seen different results.

~ I regard the
~ proper speed should be at least 3 MB/s.

I disagree. If by "3 MB/s" you mean 3 * 2^20 bytes per second, i.e. 25.166
million bits per second (which I call "Mbps") of application layer throughput,
then that would definitely be an improper (excessive) transfer rate for your
network setup.

Let's assume that you can achieve in every case 54Mbps 802.11g with absolutely
no errors or interference. And let's assume that your computers' CPUs, disk
drives, and SMB/TCP/IP stacks, etc. are not in any way a bottleneck. Then your
very best case application layer throughput for a data transfer through this
medium will be about 25Mbps.

However, bear in mind that each packet will need to traverse your wireless
channel twice, once from the source PC to the AP (wireless router), and
again from the AP to the target PC. So, this will halve your best-case
end-to-end application layer throughput, to about 12Mbps.

~ The signal strenght is "excellent"
~ and the notebooks are in the same room. I use DHCP.
~
~ Please, give me a piece of advice what to do to increase this dramatically
~ low speed.

You present no reason to believe that you should experience any better
throughput that what you are reporting.

Aaron

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>Sorry, I can not. If this is indeed the Vista-slow-network-transfer
>>problem, and not just a possible driver issue, there is no *absolute*
>>fix for it.
>
> I tried every Vista tweak I could find, including the
> withdrawn Pre-SP1 pre-requiste patches.

You mean the one required update that could hose your Vista install
completely ?!?!?!

> Most of the machines
> responded to the fix, but one HP Pavilion something did not. I shoved
> in a 2nd ethernet card, disabled the one on the motherboard, and that
> fixed the problem. It seems to be a combination of Vista, ethernet
> drivers, hardware, and magic.
>
>>Some have said SP1 (still beta) for Vista has fixed it. Others have
>>said that other individual updates that had come down thru WU have
>>fixed it, or, made it better.
>
> SP1 is due for release on Mar 18. Holding my breath as I have some
> customers that are angry at *ME* because Vista is such a slug.
> Why me?

Did you recommend the update to Vista ?

DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>
>>>Sorry, I can not. If this is indeed the Vista-slow-network-transfer
>>>problem, and not just a possible driver issue, there is no *absolute*
>>>fix for it.
>>
>> I tried every Vista tweak I could find, including the
>> withdrawn Pre-SP1 pre-requiste patches.
>
>You mean the one required update that could hose your Vista install
>completely ?!?!?!

There were two updates that were released early and almost immediately
withdrawn. It did NOT destroy the Vista install on the one machine
that I tried. However, when finished, the slow copy problem was still
there and Norton 360 was complaining that it couldn't start. I rolled
back the updates and was back in operation in about 10 minutes. I
also did a 3 DVD image backup of the machine before starting, but
didn't need to use it.

Vista SP1 is going to be lots of fun for application vendors:
<http://forums.vnunet.com/thread.jspa?threadID=131039>

>> SP1 is due for release on Mar 18. Holding my breath as I have some
>> customers that are angry at *ME* because Vista is such a slug.
>> Why me?

>Did you recommend the update to Vista ?

Surely you jest. I rarely get involved on the front end, before the
actual purchase. In this case, I very astute purchasing agent was
informed by the vendor that XP was obsolete and that the only OS that
could be bundled with the systems he was buying was Vista. By the
time I found out that they had bought Vista, it was too late to cancel
the order, or I would blow the schedule (and the bosses vacation) if I
returned them. There are 22 machines involved which are working well
enough, but slow. I recently found that I can "solve" the problem by
installing a 2nd ethernet card and ignoring the ethernet on the
motherboard. That will let me stall on installing Vista SP1 until the
bugs get shaken out.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I can not. If this is indeed the Vista-slow-network-transfer
>>>> problem, and not just a possible driver issue, there is no *absolute*
>>>> fix for it.
>>> I tried every Vista tweak I could find, including the
>>> withdrawn Pre-SP1 pre-requiste patches.
>> You mean the one required update that could hose your Vista install
>> completely ?!?!?!
>
> There were two updates that were released early and almost immediately
> withdrawn. It did NOT destroy the Vista install on the one machine
> that I tried. However, when finished, the slow copy problem was still
> there and Norton 360 was complaining that it couldn't start. I rolled
> back the updates and was back in operation in about 10 minutes. I
> also did a 3 DVD image backup of the machine before starting, but
> didn't need to use it.
>
> Vista SP1 is going to be lots of fun for application vendors:
> <http://forums.vnunet.com/thread.jspa?threadID=131039>
>
>>> SP1 is due for release on Mar 18. Holding my breath as I have some
>>> customers that are angry at *ME* because Vista is such a slug.
>>> Why me?
>
>> Did you recommend the update to Vista ?
>
> Surely you jest. I rarely get involved on the front end, before the
> actual purchase. In this case, I very astute purchasing agent was
> informed by the vendor that XP was obsolete and that the only OS that
> could be bundled with the systems he was buying was Vista. By the
> time I found out that they had bought Vista, it was too late to cancel
> the order, or I would blow the schedule (and the bosses vacation) if I
> returned them. There are 22 machines involved which are working well
> enough, but slow. I recently found that I can "solve" the problem by
> installing a 2nd ethernet card and ignoring the ethernet on the
> motherboard. That will let me stall on installing Vista SP1 until the
> bugs get shaken out.
>
Don't expect any massive improvements in file copying.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...spx?i=3233&p=3

LR <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Don't expect any massive improvements in file copying.
>http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...spx?i=3233&p=3

Thanks. This is really going to be great. I get to spend 20 to 60
minutes installing Vista SP1, for little or no customer perceivable
improvements. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to get my bill for
installing it.

Back in the stone age of computing, I observed that it took 18 months
for the first usable release of any software to appear. Microsoft
took a bit longer at perhaps 22-24 months. I assumed (wrongly) that
the long delay in releasing Vista might have reduced this time
somewhat. Instead, it's done the opposite. Grumble...

Well, at least I can keep myself entertained with Vista SP1
Pre-802.11n Draft 2 support:
Rounding out the major additions to Vista SP1 are items to
support new technology. The more pressing of these is full
support for 802.11n Draft 2.0 wireless networking, which in
spite of not being a final version of the 802.11n standard
has quickly become a de-facto standard. While it is possible
for a pre-SP1 machine to use 802.11n, it requires an additional
level of work by the hardware developer to write more driver
code and applications to compensate for the lack of native
support - the OS has such support for 802.11a/b/g, thus handling
most of the work. In effect SP1 brings 802.11n support to the
same level as a/b/g.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558