isn't it too slow ?

"AMS" wrote in news:fq2pu2$hta$ snipped-for-privacy@achot.icm.edu.pl:

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

U¿ytkownik "DanS" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci news:Xns9A534CF524693thisnthatadelphianet@66.250.146.128...

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" wrote in news:fq9g8e$srv$ snipped-for-privacy@achot.icm.edu.pl:

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 hath wroth:

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 I tried every Vista tweak I could find, including the withdrawn Pre-SP1 pre-requiste patches.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.

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?

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?

~ 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 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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

Did you recommend the update to Vista ?

DanS hath wroth:

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:

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.

LR hath wroth:

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.

One of the things I noticed in the changes for SP1 which users may complain about was:- "The Windows Vista SP1 install process clears the user-specific data that is used by Windows to optimize performance, which may make the system feel less responsive immediately after install. As the customer uses their SP1 PC, the system will be retrained over the course of a few hours or days and will return to the previous level of responsiveness."